Research on the Letter to the Galatians: 2000-2020

Research on the Letter to the Galatians: 2000-2020 Volume 2: Research on the Letter arranged according to Pericopes D. Francois Tolmie Research on the Letter to the Galatians: 2000-2020 Volume 2: Research on the Letter arranged according to Pericopes Published by UJ Press University of Johannesburg Library Auckland Park Kingsway Campus PO Box 524 Auckland Park 2006 https://ujonlinepress.uj.ac.za/ Compilation © D. Francois Tolmie 2023 Chapters © D. Francois Tolmie 2023 Published Edition © D. Francois Tolmie 2023 First published 2023 https://doi.org/10.36615/9781776436071 978-1-7764360-6-4 (Paperback) 978-1-7764360-7-1 (PDF) 978-1-7764360-8-8 (EPUB) 978-1-7764360-9-5 (XML) This publication had been submitted to a rigorous double-blind peer-review process prior to publication and all recommendations by the reviewers were considered and implemented before publication. Copy editor: Nanette Lötter Cover design: Hester Roets, UJ Graphic Design Studio Typeset in 10/13pt Merriweather Light

<_No_paragraph_style_>Contents Preface ...................................................................................................................... iii Introduction ........................................................................................................... v Chapter 1: Galatians 1:1–5 .................................................................................. 1 1. Linguistic, stylistic and translation issues ....................................... 1 2. Wirkungsgeschichte .................................................................................... 1 3. Interpretative approaches ...................................................................... 2 4. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: Galatians 1:6–10 ............................................................................... 7 1. Text-critical, linguistic and stylistic issues ..................................... 7 2. Wirkungsgeschichte ..................................................................................... 9 3. Interpretative approaches ...................................................................... 10 4. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 12 Chapter 3: Galatians 1:11–24 ............................................................................. 15 1. Verses 11–12 ................................................................................................. 15 2. Verses 13–14 ................................................................................................ 15 3. Verses 15–17 ................................................................................................ 18 4. Verses 18–20 ............................................................................................... 27 5. Verses 21–24 ............................................................................................... 28 6. Studies on the pericope as a whole ...................................................... 29 Chapter 4: Galatians 2:1–10 ............................................................................... 33 1. Introductory issues ................................................................................... 33 2. Stylistic and translation issues ............................................................. 40 3. Wirkungsgeschichte ..................................................................................... 42 4. Interpretative approaches ...................................................................... 43 5. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 47 Chapter 5: Galatians 2:11–21 ............................................................................. 51 1. Introductory issues ................................................................................... 51 2. Text-critical, linguistic, stylistic and translation issues ............. 62 3. Wirkungsgeschichte ..................................................................................... 65 4. Interpretative approaches ...................................................................... 74 5. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 79 Chapter 6: Galatians 3:1–5 ................................................................................. 101 1. Introductory issues ................................................................................... 101 2. Linguistic, stylistic issues and translation issues .......................... 103 3. Wirkungsgeschichte ..................................................................................... 104 4. Interpretative approaches ...................................................................... 105 5. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 108 Chapter 7: Galatians 3:6–14 .............................................................................. 115 1. Introductory issues ................................................................................... 115 2. Linguistic and stylistic issues ................................................................ 118 3. Wirkungsgeschichte ..................................................................................... 118 4. Interpretative approaches ...................................................................... 121 5. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 134 Chapter 8: Galatians 3:15–18 ............................................................................. 145 1. Introductory issues ................................................................................... 145 2. Translation issues ..................................................................................... 146 3. Wirkunsgeschichte ....................................................................................... 146 4. Interpretative approaches ...................................................................... 147 5. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 150 Chapter 9: Galatians 3:19–25 ........................................................................... 155 1. Introductory issues ................................................................................... 155 2. Text-critical, linguistic, stylistic and translation issues ............. 156 3. Wirkungsgeschichte ..................................................................................... 159 4. Interpretative approaches ..................................................................... 160 5. Theological issues .................................................................................... 162 Chapter 10: Galatians 3:26–29 ......................................................................... 175 1. Introductory issues ................................................................................... 175 2. Text-critical, linguistic, stylistic and translation issues ............. 177 3. Wirkungsgeschichte ..................................................................................... 179 4. Interpretative approaches ...................................................................... 187 5. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 193 Chapter 11: Galatians 4:1–7 ............................................................................... 215 1. Background .................................................................................................. 215 2. Text-critical, linguistic, stylistic and translation issues ............. 216 3. Wirkungsgeschichte ..................................................................................... 219 4. Interpretative approaches ...................................................................... 220 5. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 221 Chapter 12: Galatians 4:8–11 ............................................................................. 233 1. Background .................................................................................................. 233 2. Metaphor and translational issues ...................................................... 234 3. Wirkungsgeschichte ..................................................................................... 235 4. Interpretative approaches ...................................................................... 235 5. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 236 Chapter 13: Galatians 4:12–20 .......................................................................... 239 1. Introductory issues ................................................................................... 239 2. Text-critical, linguistic and stylistic issues ..................................... 240 3. Wirkungsgeschichte ..................................................................................... 242 4. Interpretative approaches ...................................................................... 243 5. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 245 Chapter 14: Galatians 4:21–31/5:1 .................................................................. 249 1. Introductory issues ................................................................................... 249 2. Text-critical, linguistic, stylistic and translation issues ............. 252 3. Wirkungsgeschichte ..................................................................................... 255 4. Interpretative approaches ..................................................................... 260 5. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 272 Chapter 15: Galatians 5:1/2–6 ........................................................................... 279 1. Wirkungsgeschichte ..................................................................................... 279 2. Interpretative approaches ...................................................................... 281 3. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 283 Chapter 16: Galatians 5:7–12 ............................................................................ 289 1. Introductory issues ................................................................................... 289 2. Syntactical, stylistic and translation issues ..................................... 290 3. Interpretative approaches ...................................................................... 292 4. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 293 Chapter 17: Galatians 5:13–6:10 ....................................................................... 295 1. Introductory issues ................................................................................... 295 2. Linguistic, semantic and translational issues ................................. 297 3. Wirkungsgeschichte ..................................................................................... 298 4. Interpretative approaches ...................................................................... 302 5. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 305 Chapter 18: Galatians 6:11–18 ........................................................................... 321 1. Introductory Issues .................................................................................. 321 2. Translational and stylistic issues ......................................................... 322 3. Wirkungsgeschichte ..................................................................................... 322 4. Interpretative approaches ...................................................................... 323 5. Theological issues ..................................................................................... 327 Chapter 19: Commentaries on Galatians ....................................................... 335 Dedicated to Rian Venter and Jan-Albert van den Berg, two excellent theologians and wonderful friends, in remembrance of the many years that we worked together at the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of the Free State Preface It has been a wonderful journey to focus intensively on what happened in Galatians research from 2000 until 2020. I enjoyed the time spent on this exercise immensely and have indeed been blessed by so many new insights that I stumbled upon as the study progressed. I trust that this study will be received well by other Galatians scholars and that it will stimulate further research on this Pauline letter. It is my hope that fellow scholars will use it as a basis for developing novel insights and fresh approaches to the letter or parts of it, enabling all of us to understand it even better. The research and writing of this study took me more or less four years to complete. This was longer than I had originally anticipated, but Covid-19 made it difficult for me to visit the overseas libraries upon which I depended for gaining access to many studies that were not available in South Africa. Nevertheless, better late than never! Apart from the excellent service rendered by the library of the University of the Free State, I also wish to acknowledge the libraries of Princeton Theological Seminary and the KU Leuven, both of which I visited several times and where I was always received kindly. Furthermore, I wish to express my appreciation to Nanette Lötter who did the language editing. This work is dedicated to Rian Venter and Jan-Albert van den Berg, two excellent theologians and wonderful friends, in remembrance of the many years that we worked together at the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of the Free State. It was a pleasure to travel this road together with them and I hereby acknowledge with gratitude the privilege I had to experience their integrity, scholarship, loyalty and true friendship personally. D. Francois Tolmie Faculty of Theology and Religion University of the Free State Bloemfontein South Africa Introduction The aim of this study is to offer an overview of the research published on the Letter to the Galatians, from 2000 to 2020. An enormous number of publications appeared during this period and the primary purpose of this work is to provide a brief overview of these. Furthermore, it attempts to bring together research on particular aspects in an accessible way so that other scholars will be able to grasp easily what has already been done and to understand the tendencies dominating the research of a specific issue and thus be in a position to identify and develop novel avenues for further research. It should also be noted that there is limited interaction with or evaluation of what has been offered by scholars. This would necessitate a much longer and more detailed study. Instead, I have attempted rather to provide as broad an overview as possible of the great variety of issues that received the attention of scholars during this period. This overview is divided into two volumes. In the first volume, research on the letter is divided into five main areas (with subdivisions), with each section covered in a separate chapter. Due to the fact that some studies fit in more than one category, they are discussed or at least mentioned in more than one section. In this volume, the second volume, research is classified in terms of the particular pericope/s on which it focuses. It should also be noted that I have not discussed commentaries on the letter, since it is quite difficult to summarise the contribution of a particular commentary briefly. Accordingly, some of the commentaries that appeared during the period considered are merely listed at the end of this volume. Furthermore, it should be noted that sermons on Galatians have also not been included in this overview. I have tried my utmost to identify as many as possible of the studies published in the years from 2000 until 2020, but I realise that there will be some that have slipped through the net. I apologise to scholars whose studies are not discussed in this book because of accidental omission. Be assured that the oversight was not deliberate and happened in spite of all attempts on my side to be as comprehensive as possible. Chapter 1: Galatians 1:1–5

1. Linguistic, stylistic and translation issues

One of the issues that Moisés Silva 1 1 M. Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2001 [1996], 2nd edition), pp. 53–54. (2001) discusses is whether there is a difference in meaning between ἀπό (“by” [a human]) and διά [through] a human) in v. 1. Silva thinks that there might be a difference in meaning but warns against using this distinction as a basis for historical speculation. One of the slavery metaphors that Sam Tsang 2 2 S. Tsang, From Slaves to Sons: A New Rhetoric Analysis on Paul’s Slave Metaphors in His Letter to the Galatians (Studies in Biblical Literature 81, New York NY: Peter Lang, 2005), pp. 63–73. (2005) discusses in the light of insights from the New Rhetoric is the one in v. 1. Tsang places this metaphor in the first of three categories: apologetic usage (1:1, 10, 6:17) (The other two categories are polemical usage [2:4, 4:30] and didactic usage [3:23–26, 4:1–10]). One of the examples that Dan Nässelqvist 3 3 D. Nässelqvist, “Könsinkluderande Språk i Nästa Svenska Bibelöversättning”, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 81 (2016), pp. 169–216. (2016) uses to help translators in their choices about gender-inclusive language comes from this pericope (vv. 3–5). Nässelqvist distinguishes between three types of gender-inclusive language (gender-accurate, gender-muted and radically inclusive language).

2. Wirkungsgeschichte

Samuel Vollenweider 4 4 S. Vollenweider, “Paulus in Zürich: Zur Briefauslegung von Heinrich Bullinger”, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 114:1 (2017), pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1628/004435417X14822419363900 (2017) uses examples from Galatians (1:1–9, 2:12–21 and 3:13) and Philippians to illustrate Bullinger’s interpretation of Paul. Vollenweider draws attention to two aspects: Bullinger follows Melanchthon’s rhetorical approach, but in a milder way, and, furthermore, his hermeneutical approach was characterised by a focus on the scopus of Scripture and the way in which it could be organised in terms of loci.

3. Interpretative approaches

Luc de Saeger 5 5 L. de Saeger, “‘Für unsere Sünden’: 1 Kor 15,3b und Gal 1,4a im exegetischen Vergleich”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 77:1 (2001), pp. 169–191. https://doi.org/10.2143/etl.77.1.567 (2001) discusses the differences and similarities between the use of the expression “for our sins” in v. 4a and 1 Corinthians 15:3b. De Saeger suggests that the expression is used in 1 Corinthians in a context referring to the future whereas the emphasis in Galatians falls on present liberation. Rainer Dillmann 6 6 R. Dillmann, “Seine Briefe sind schwer und stark (vgl. 2 Kor 10,10): Leserlenkung im Präskript des Galaterbriefs und Römerbriefs: Ein Vergleich”, in: J. Hainz (ed.), Unterwegs mit Paulus: Otto Kuss zum 100. Geburtstag (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2007, 2nd edition), pp. 111‑131. (2007) focuses on epistolographical issues and discusses the salutations in Galatians and Romans, highlighting the different ways in which Paul established relationships in the prescripts of these two letters. Several scholars discussed rhetorical aspects of the pericope: Johan S. Vos 7 7 J.S. Vos, Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus: Studien zur antiken Rhetorik (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.149, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157227-2 Earlier versions of the contributions on Galatians: J.S. Vos, “Die Argumentation des Paulus in Galater 1,1–2,10”, in: J. Lambrecht (ed.), The Truth of the Gospel (Galatians 1:1–4:11) (Benedictina Monographic Series 12, Rome: Benedictina Publishers, 1993), pp. 11–43, J.S. Vos, “Charismatisch en Gevestigd Gezag in de Gemeente: Een Spanningsveld in de Brief van Paulus aan de Galaten”, in: J. Delobel and H.J. de Jonge (eds.), Vroegchristelijke Gemeenten tussen Ideaal en Werkelijkheid (Kampen: Kok, 2001), pp. 30–39, J.S. Vos, “Die hermeneutische Antinomie bei Paulus (Galater 3.11–12; Römer 10.5–10)”, New Testament Studies 38:2 (1992), pp. 254–270, and J.S. Vos, “Paulus en de Schrift: Hermeneutiek en Retoriek in Gal 3,6–11”, in: T. Baarda, H.J. de Jonge and M.J.J. Menken (eds.), Jodendom en Vroeg Christendom: Continuïteit en Discontinuïteit (Kampen: Kok, 1991), pp. 63‑79. (2002) distinguishes between different types of rhetoric/argumentation in Paul’s letters and explains Paul’s rhetorical strategy in each instance in detail. Vos describes 1:1–2:11 as an example of revelatory rhetoric. Todd A. Wilson 8 8 T.A. Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy and Paul’s Portrayal of the Crisis in Galatians”, New Testament Studies 50:4 (2004), pp. 550–571. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688504000311 (2004) claims that Paul uses the theme of Israel’s wilderness apostasy in Galatians. The Galatians are depicted as on the verge of a wilderness apostasy, somewhere between redemption (as happened in Exodus) and inheriting the kingdom of God. One of the passages in which Wilson finds this notion is vv. 1–4. D. Francois Tolmie 9 9 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 See also: D.F. Tolmie, “The Rhetorical Analysis of Galatians: Is There Another Way?”, in: P. Chatelion Counet and U. Berges (eds.), One Text, Thousand Methods: Studies in Memory of Sjef van Tilborg (Biblical Interpretation Series 71, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2005), pp. 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047415428_017 (2005) offers a text-based rhetorical analysis of Galatians. Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope is summarised as adapting the salutation to emphasise the divine origin of his apostleship. Dieter Mitternacht 10 10 D. Mitternacht, “‘Forceful and Demanding’: On Paul as a Letter Writer”, Theology & Life 36 (2013), pp. 127–142. (2013) explains Paul’s rhetorical skill in the letter-opening (identified as 1:1–10), in particular, by drawing attention to the way in which this serves to help set the stage for the important request in 4:12. 1:13–4:11 shows the plausibility of the request and 4:13–6:10 highlights the benefits or harm to follow depending on the way in which the Galatians responded to the request. Jesper Tang Nielsen 11 11 J.T. Nielsen, “The Cognitive Structures in Galatians 1:4”, in: B. Howe and J.B. Green (eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Explorations in Biblical Studies (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), pp. 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110350135.145 (2014) utilises cognitive theory to explain how Paul goes about combining disparate ideas in 1:4. He makes use of the well-known Hellenistic view of voluntary death but reframes it in terms of a fundamental opposition between this world and the world to come.

4. Theological issues

Robert A. Bryant 12 12 R.A. Bryant, The Risen Crucified Christ in Galatians (Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 185, Atlanta GA: SBL, 2001). (2001) emphasises the importance of vv. 1–10 for understanding Paul’s letter and identifies three important “cords” in this section (the risen Christ, the crucified Christ and God who calls people into the grace of Christ), which are then traced in the rest of the letter. John Suggit 13 13 J. Suggit, “The Fatherhood of God: Galatians 1:3”, Neotestamentica 37:1 (2003), pp. 97–103. (2003) argues that v. 3 indicates that Paul regarded God as the Father of Jesus and also as the Father of the believers because of their baptism and unity with Christ. J. Prescott Johnson 14 14 J.P. Johnson, “The Age of the Ages”, The Asbury Theological Journal 57/58:2/1 (2002/2003), pp. 105–127. (2002/2003) discusses the expression “ages of ages” found in v. 5 and Ephesians 3:21. According to Johnson, this should not be interpreted as not indicating something static but rather as a refence to eternity as life and movement, the supreme experience of God. In a study of Paul’s writings as letters of worship, John Paul Heil 15 15 J.P. Heil, The Letters of Paul as Rituals of Worship (Eugene OR: Cascade, 2011), pp. 64–74. (2011) highlights the following aspects of ritual worship in the letter: worship in the letter opening (1:1–5), the link between the eucharist and worship in the Antioch incident (2:11–21), the effect of baptism on ethical worship (3:26–29, worked out in 4:1–11 and 5:16–6:10) and worship in the letter closing (6:11–18). Paul Trebilco 16 16 P. Trebilco, “Why Did the Early Christians Call Themselves ἡ ἐκκλησία?”, New Testament Studies 57:3 (2011), pp. 440–460. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688511000087 For a response, see G.H. van Kooten, “ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ: The ‘Church of God’ and the Civic Assemblies (ἐκκλησίαι) of the Greek Cities in the Roman Empire: A Response to Paul Trebilco and Richard A. Horsley”, New Testament Studies 58:4 (2012), pp. 522–548. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868851200015X (2011) is of the opinion that the term ἐκκλησία (“church”, used in v. 2) was first used by the Hellenists in Early Christianity to refer to themselves because of its occurrence in the LXX. They used ἐκκλησία instead of συναγωγή (“synagogue”) because the latter was already used by Jewish communities to refer to themselves. By means of ἐκκλησία the link to the people of God in the Hebrew Scriptures could be expressed and the distinction from Jewish communities was also clear. G.K. Beale 17 17 G.K. Beale, “The Background of ἐκκλησία Revisited”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38:2 (2015), pp. 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X15609206 (2015) offers further evidence for the claim that Paul’s use of the term ἐκκλησία (“church”) is best understood in the light of the LXX and not in terms of a Graeco-Roman background. According to Ralph J. Korner 18 18 R.J. Korner, The Origin and Meaning of ekklēsia in the Early Jesus Movement (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 98, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004344990 (2017), an association describing itself as ἐκκλησία (“church”) would not have been perceived as anti-imperial in the New Testament era although it was counter-oligarchic. Furthermore, Korner is of the opinion that the use of this term instead of “synagogue” does not necessarily imply that Paul and his congregations were moving away from Judaism. Logan Williams 19 19 L. Williams, “Giving the Self through Death: A Crucified Christ as Gift in Galatians”, in: K. Kilby and R. Davies (eds.), Suffering and the Christian Life (London/New York NY: T & T Clark, 2019), pp. 23–32. https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567687265.0006 (2019) disagrees with scholars who interpret v. 4 and 2:20 as merely referring to Christ’s death as a self-sacrifice, i.e., as a giving up his own interests. According to Williams, Christ is here rather depicted as giving himself (as a gift). Thus, Christ’s death is also viewed as bringing about a mutual relationship in which he received people into a relationship with him. Christopher M. Tuckett 20 20 C.M. Tuckett, “Galatians 1:4: Present and Future Salvation in Galatians”, in: D.S. du Toit, C. Gerber and C. Zimmermann (eds.), Sōtēria: Salvation in Early Christianity and Antiquity: Festschrift in Honour of Cilliers Breytenbach on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Novum Testamentum Supplements 175, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2019), pp. 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004396883_018 (2019) investigates present and future salvation in Galatians by looking at v. 4. Tuckett argues that one cannot understand the “rescue” mentioned in this verse as something that has already been achieved in spite of the fact that there is so much emphasis in the letter on divine initiative, since the letter makes it clear that human reaction also has a role to play in the process. Chapter 2: Galatians 1:6–10

1. Text-critical, linguistic and stylistic issues

One of the instances of rhetorical irony in Galatians that Konstantin Nikolakopoulos 1 1 K. Nikolakopoulos, “Aspekte der ‘paulinischen Ironie’ am Beispiel des Galaterbriefes”, Biblische Zeitschrift 45:2 (2001), pp. 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1163/25890468-04502003 (2001) discusses, occurs in v. 6 (the other two are found in 2:6 and 5:12). Nikolakopoulos highlights the effectiveness of irony for achieving Paul’s didactic-pedagogic purpose in the letter. Moisés Silva 2 2 M. Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2001 [1996], 2nd edition), pp. 54–56. (2001) considers the possibility that there might be a difference between ἕτερος (“other”) and ἄλλος (“other”) in 1:6–7. Silva suggests that the reason for the difference might be idiomatic. Gerd Häfner 3 3 G. Häfner, “Zur Auslegung von προειρήκαμεν in Gal 1,9”, Biblische Zeitschrift 45:1 (2001), pp. 101–104. (2001) disagrees with the majority of scholars who interpret προειρήκαμεν (“we have said before”) in v. 9 as referring to an earlier event and instead provides arguments to prove that it refers to the previous verse. Michael Bachmann 4 4 M. Bachmann, “Gal 1,9: ‘Wie wir schon früher gesagt haben, so sage ich jetzt erneut’”, Biblische Zeitschrift 47:1 (2003), pp. 112–115. https://doi.org/10.30965/25890468-047-01-90000009 Also available in: M. Bachmann, Von Paulus zur Apokalypse – und weiter: Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Neuen Testament (samt englischsprachigen Summaries) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 91, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 93–98. (2003) disagrees with Häfner, advancing several arguments why the traditional interpretation has to be preferred. Albert Vanhoye 5 5 A. Vanhoye, “La définition de l’ ‘autre évangile’ en Ga 1,6–7”, Biblica 83:3 (2002), pp. 392–398. (2002) points out that some scholars prefer to begin a new sentence after the words ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο (“that is not”) in v. 7, so that a new (elliptical) sentence starts with εἰ μή τινές … (“except that there are some …”). This punctuation implies that Paul denies the existence of any other gospel. However, Vanhoye points out that the Greek makes sense as it is and means that Paul denies the authenticity of any other gospel. One of the slavery metaphors that Sam Tsang 6 6 S. Tsang, From Slaves to Sons: A New Rhetoric Analysis on Paul’s Slave Metaphors in His Letter to the Galatians (Studies in Biblical Literature 81, New York NY: Peter Lang, 2005), pp. 63–73. (2005) discusses in the light of insights from the New Rhetoric is the one in v. 10. Tsang places this metaphor in the first of three categories: apologetic usage (1:1, 10, 6:17). (The other two are polemical usage [2:4, 4:30] and didactic usage [3:23–26, 4:1–10]). David J. Armitage 7 7 D.J. Armitage, “An Exploration of Conditional Clause Exegesis with Reference to Galatians 1,8–9”, Biblical Interpretation 88:3 (2007), pp. 365–392. (2007) proposes an integrative approach to the interpretation of conditional clauses in which one does not only make use of syntactic and semantic perspectives, but also of speech act theory. Armitage illustrates how such an approach may be used by applying it to the two conditional clauses found in vv. 8–9. Gordon D. Fee 8 8 G.D. Fee, “Paul’s Use of Locative ἐν in Galatians: On Text and Meaning in Galatians 1.6; 1.16; 2.20; 3.11–12, and 3.26”, in: C.J. Roetzel and R.L. Foster (eds.), The Impartial God: Essays in Biblical Studies in Honor of Jouette M. Bassler (New Testament Monographs 22, Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2007), pp. 170–185. (2007) discusses the way in which Paul uses the locative ἐν (“in”) in 1:6, 1:16, 2:20, 3:11–12 and 3:26. According to Fee, it is generally used in Galatians to emphasise how the Galatians should maintain their life in Christ, but v. 6 is an exception, since in this instance it refers to how they became followers of Christ. Troy W. Martin 9 9 T.W. Martin, “The Syntax of Surprise, Irony, or Shifting of Blame in Gal 1:6–7”, Biblical Research 54 (2009), pp. 79–98. (2009) accepts Cornelius a Lapide and Heinrich August Scott’s suggestion that εἰ μή (“except”) in v. 7 should be connected to θαυμάζω (“I marvel”) at the beginning of v. 6. Martin points out that this means that Paul is trying to shift the blame in these two verses, rather than being ironic. According to Heerak Christian Kim 10 10 H.C. Kim, “Sola Scriptura and Galatians 1:8–9: Galatians’ Prejudice against Alternative Interpretation ”, in: H.C. Kim (ed.), Galatians as Examined by Diverse Academics in 2012 (St. Andrews, Scotland) (Hermit Kingdom Studies in Christianity and Judaism 3, Newark NJ: The Hermit Kingdom Press, 2013), pp. 164–209. (2013), the concept sola Scriptura is not an invention of the Reformation. A similar notion was already operative in Early Christianity. In a discussion of the expression “another gospel” in vv. 8–9, Kim explains this further, drawing attention to a literary device used in the letter, a so-called “key signifier”, namely the notion in Early Christianity that Abraham was saved by faith. Ladislav Tichy 11 11 L. Tichy, “The ‘Gospel’ in Gal 1:6–7 Revisited”, Novum Testamentum 56:4 (2014), pp. 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-12341480 (2014) disagrees with scholars who interpret vv. 6–7 as meaning that Paul accepted that a different gospel could exist. Tichy is of the opinion that such an interpretation cannot be accepted due to contextual and linguistic reasons. Jan Lambrecht 12 12 J. Lambrecht, In Search of Meaning: Collected Notes on the New Testament (2014–2017) (Balti: Scholars’ Press, 2017), pp. 430–433. (2017) investigates the fourfold use of γάρ (“for”) in 1:10–13. According to Lambrecht, the term does not have causal force in vv. 10 and 11. In vv. 12 and 13 it has causal force, but not in the same way. A. Andrew Das 13 13 A.A. Das, “The Rhetoric of Curse in Galatians 1:10 – Persuading God”, in: E.F. Mason and M.F. Whitters (eds.), With Gentleness and Respect: Pauline and Petrine Studies in Honor of Troy W. Martin (Biblical Tools and Studies 40, Leuven/Paris/Bristol CT: Peeters, 2020), pp. 39–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1q26nx6.7 (2020) is of the opinion that Paul utilises the rhetorical question in v. 10 in order to signal to his readers that he is genuinely trying to persuade them to adhere to the gospel. He also wants them to reject the message of his opponents who are people-pleasers. Although Paul was formerly a people-pleaser, he left that behind when he started following Christ.

2. Wirkungsgeschichte

V. 6 is one of the examples that Benjamin D. Haupt 14 14 B.D. Haupt, “Tertullian’s Text of Galatians”, Studia Patristica 96 (2017), pp. 23–28. (2017) cites to argue that Tertullian probably did not make use of an already existing Latin translation of the text but that he translated the parts that he needed from the Greek himself. Samuel Vollenweider 15 15 S. Vollenweider, “Paulus in Zürich: Zur Briefauslegung von Heinrich Bullinger”, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 114:1 (2017), pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1628/004435417X14822419363900 (2017) uses examples from Galatians (1:1–9, 2:12–21 and 3:13) and Philippians to illustrate Bullinger’s interpretation of Paul. Vollenweider highlights two aspects: Bullinger follows Melanchthon’s rhetorical approach, but in a milder way, and, furthermore, his hermeneutical approach was characterised by a focus on the scopus of Scripture and the way in which it could be organised in terms of loci.

3. Interpretative approaches

3.1 Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures

Roy E. Ciampa 16 16 R.E. Ciampa, “Deuteronomy in Romans and Galatians”, in: M.J.J. Menken and S. Moyise (eds.), Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel (Library of New Testament Studies 358, London: T & T Clark, 2007), pp. 99–117. (2007) offers a thorough overview of Paul’s use of Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romans. In the case of vv. 8–9, Ciampa discusses a possible echo of Deuteronomy 13:12–16 LXX. Ciampa concludes that it seems as if Paul regarded some texts as offering guidance for the period before Christ came and others as offering guidance for the situation of his readers. According to Seth M. Ehorn 17 17 S.M. Ehorn, “Galatians 1:8 and Paul’s Reading of Abraham’s Story”, The Journal of Theological Studies 64:2 (2013), pp. 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flt086 (2013), Paul’s reference to an angel in v. 8 makes sense if one keeps in mind the important role that the Abraham narrative plays in the letter. Paul thus might have had in mind the angelic visitors who conveyed a promise to Abraham (Genesis 18:10, 14).

3.2 Epistolographical approaches

Robert E. van Voorst 18 18 R.E. van Voorst, “Why Is There no Thanksgiving Period in Galatians? An Assessment of an Exegetical Commonplace”, Journal of Biblical Literature 129:1 (2010), pp. 153–172. https://doi.org/10.2307/27821010 (2010) thinks that Paul’s readers would probably not have realised that a thanksgiving was missing at this stage in the letter, since they did not know his epistolary practice in this regard. Furthermore, Van Voorst links the omission of a thanksgiving to the exceptional content and form of 1:1–5. Jan Lambrecht 19 19 J. Lambrecht, “Paul and Epistolary Thanksgiving”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 88:1 (2012), pp. 167–171. https://doi.org/10.2143/ETL.88.1.2164174 (2012) agrees with Van Voorst that the readers would not have realised that a thanksgiving was absent. Additionally, Lambrecht analyses the prescripts of Galatians and 2 Corinthians (also without a thanksgiving), pointing out that Paul apparently felt free to adapt his style as needed. Samuelle Salvatori 20 20 S. Salvatori, “La Funzione Argomentativa dell’Esordio di Gal 1,6–10”, Liber Annuus 68 (2018), pp. 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.LA.4.2019038 (2018) regards this passage as the exordium of the letter and thinks that it is used sensibly by Paul to confront the Galatians regarding their about-turn, by referring to the gospel and its consequences. This insight also helps one to understand developments in the rest of the letter better.

3.3 Rhetorical approaches

Johan S. Vos 21 21 J.S. Vos, Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus: Studien zur antiken Rhetorik (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.149, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157227-2 Earlier versions of the contributions on Galatians: J.S. Vos, “Die Argumentation des Paulus in Galater 1,1–2,10”, in: J. Lambrecht (ed.), The Truth of the Gospel (Galatians 1:1–4:11) (Benedictina Monographic Series 12, Rome: Benedictina Publishers, 1993), pp. 11–43, J.S. Vos, “Charismatisch en Gevestigd Gezag in de Gemeente: Een Spanningsveld in de Brief van Paulus aan de Galaten”, in: J. Delobel and H.J. de Jonge (eds.), Vroegchristelijke Gemeenten tussen Ideaal en Werkelijkheid (Kampen: Kok, 2001), pp. 30–39, J.S. Vos, “Die hermeneutische Antinomie bei Paulus (Galater 3.11–12; Römer 10.5–10)”, New Testament Studies 38:2 (1992), pp. 254–270 and J.S. Vos, “Paulus en de Schrift: Hermeneutiek en Retoriek in Gal 3,6–11”, in: T. Baarda, H.J. de Jonge and M.J.J. Menken (eds.), Jodendom en Vroeg Christendom: Continuïteit en Discontinuïteit (Kampen: Kok, 1991), pp. 63‑79. (2002) distinguishes between different types of rhetoric/argumentation in Paul’s letters and explains Paul’s rhetorical strategy in each instance in detail. Vos describes 1:1–2:11 as revelatory rhetoric. D. Francois Tolmie 22 22 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 See also D.F. Tolmie, “The Rhetorical Analysis of Galatians: Is There Another Way?”, in: P. Chatelion Counet and U. Berges (eds.), One Text, Thousand Methods: Studies in Memory of Sjef van Tilborg (Biblical Interpretation Series 71, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2005), pp. 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047415428_017 (2005) offers a text-based rhetorical analysis of Galatians. Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope is summarised as expressing disgust at events in the Galatian churches in order to force the Galatians to reconsider their position. This notion is conveyed by means of a rebuke in v. 6, vilification in vv. 6–7, a twofold curse in vv. 8–9 and refutation of criticism in v. 10. One of the instances of rebuke in Galatians that David V. Urban 23 23 D.V. Urban, “The Rhetoric of Rebuke and Community-Shaping in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: An Aristotelian Analysis, with Jeremiah as an Alternative Interpretive Rubric”, Scandinavian Evangelical E-Journal for New Testament Studies 1 (2010), pp. 28–42. (2010) discusses in an analysis of the ways in which Paul uses a rhetoric of rebuke to shape the ethos of his readers in the letter occurs in vv. 6–7 (the others are found in 3:1–5, 4:8–11 and 5:2–12). Urban uses an Aristotelian analysis to explain Paul’s practice and links it to Jeremiah. D. Francois Tolmie 24 24 D.F. Tolmie, “Angels as Arguments? The Rhetorical Function of References to Angels in the Main Letters of Paul”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 67:1 (2011), pp. 1–3. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v67i1.825 (2011) highlights the rhetorical function of angels in Paul’s arguments in the main letters. In the case of vv. 8–9, Tolmie argues that Paul uses angels to indicate the wide scope covered by the curse, to convey how sure he is that his views are correct and to suggest that he, like the angels, is obedient to God. Dieter Mitternacht 25 25 D. Mitternacht, “‘Forceful and Demanding’: On Paul as a Letter Writer”, Theology & Life 36 (2013), pp. 127–142. (2013) explains Paul’s rhetorical skill in the letter-opening (identified as 1:1–10), in particular, by drawing attention to the way in which this serves to help set the stage for the important request in 4:12. 1:13–4:11 shows the plausibility of the request and 4:13–6:10 highlights the benefits or harm to follow, depending on the way in which the Galatians responded to the request. That Paul refers to his and the Galatians’ calling as both happening through grace in vv. 6 and 15 is taken by Orrey McFarland 26 26 O. McFarland, “‘The One Who Calls in Grace’: Paul’s Rhetorical and Theological Identification with the Galatians”, Horizons in Biblical Theology 35:2 (2013), pp. 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1163/18712207-12341258 (2013) as an indication that Paul rhetorically and theologically identifies with them so that their stories are intertwined. Accordingly, Paul’s autobiographical testimony in Chapters 1 and 2 cannot be separated from Chapters 3 to 6.

3.4 Speech act theory

Pieter Verster 27 27 P. Verster, “The Implications of Non-Authentic Questions in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9 (2007), pp. 142–161. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52344 (2007) uses speech act theory to distinguish between various types of non-authentic questions in Galatians. This makes it possible to describe the intended effect of each question more accurately. The one in v. 10 is classified as a “statement negative”.

4. Theological issues

Robert A. Bryant 28 28 R.A. Bryant, The Risen Crucified Christ in Galatians (Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 185, Atlanta GA: SBL, 2001). (2001) emphasises the importance of 1:1–10 for understanding Paul’s letter and identifies three important “cords” in this section (the risen Christ, the crucified Christ and God who calls people into the grace of Christ), which are then traced in the rest of the letter. In the light of 1:6–12, William J. Abraham 29 29 W.J. Abraham, “The Offense of Divine Revelation”, Harvard Theological Review 95:3 (2002), pp. 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816002000160 (2002) investigates the notion of revelation. Abraham describes it as a threshold experience, opening a totally new world, and as something that can unite Jews and Gentiles in their service of God. Craig L. Blomberg 30 30 C.L. Blomberg, “The New Testament Definition of Heresy (or When do Jesus and the Apostles Really Get Mad?)”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45:1 (2002), pp. 59–72. (2002) gives an overview of the way in which the New Testament defines and handles heresy. In the case of Galatians 1–2, Blomberg points out that Paul only vilified his opponents in such a harsh way when he believed people’s eternal destiny was endangered. N.H. Taylor 31 31 N.H. Taylor, “Conflict as Context for Defining Identity: A Study of Apostleship in the Galatian and Corinthian Letters”, HTS Teologiese Studies 59:3 (2003), pp. 915–945. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v59i3.680 Also available in: N.H. Taylor, “Apostolic Identity and the Conflicts in Corinth and Galatia”, in: S.E. Porter (ed.), Paul and His Opponents (Pauline Studies 2, Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047416074_007 (2003) investigates the ways in which Paul and his rivals defined apostleship in the conflicts reflected in Galatians and the Corinthian letters. Taylor finds no common conception of apostleship underlying the conflicts. The different claims for legitimacy were based on different criteria. Jens Schröter 32 32 J. Schröter, “Die Einheit des Evangeliums: Erwägungen zur christologischen Kontroverse des Galaterbriefes und ihrem theologie-geschichtlichen Hintergrund”, in: J. Mrázek and J. Roskovec (eds.), Testimony & Interpretation: Early Christology in Its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu: Studies in Honor of Petr Pokorný (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 272, London/New York NY: T & T Clark, 2004), pp. 49–67. Also available in: J. Schröter, Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament: Studien zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte und zur Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.204, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp. 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151493-7 (2004) focuses on the Christological controversy in Galatians. According to Paul, there is only one gospel, but it is expressed in two forms (“Gestalten”; 1:6–7, 2:7), and in this letter, Paul aims to show the original unity of the two forms. Anthony C. Thiselton 33 33 A.C. Thiselton, Puzzling Passages in Paul: Forty Conundrums Calmly Considered (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2018), pp. 107–110. (2018) poses the question of whether it was appropriate for Paul to curse people who taught false doctrine, as he does in vv. 8–9 and 1 Corinthians 16:22. According to Thiselton, he makes sense if one considers the covenant context (blessing/curse) within which Paul uttered the curses. Chapter 3: Galatians 1:11–24

1. Verses 11–12

One of the issues that Moisés Silva 1 1 M. Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2001 [1996], 2nd edition), pp. 53–79. (2001) discusses is the interpretation of the genitive in v. 12 (διʼ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, “by the revelation of Jesus Christ”). Silva points out the two options (subjective or objective genitive) and opts for interpreting it as an objective genitive. In the light of 1:6–12, William J. Abraham 2 2 W.J. Abraham, “The Offense of Divine Revelation”, Harvard Theological Review 95:3 (2002), pp. 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816002000160 (2002) investigates the notion of revelation. Abraham describes it as a threshold experience, opening a totally new world, and as something that can unite Jews and Gentiles in their service of God. Jan Lambrecht 3 3 J. Lambrecht, In Search of Meaning: Collected Notes on the New Testament (2014–2017) (Balti: Scholars’ Press, 2017), pp. 430–433. (2017) investigates the fourfold use of γάρ in 1:10–13. According to Lambrecht, it does not have causal force in vv. 10 and 11. In vv. 12 and 13 it has causal force, but not in the same way.

2. Verses 13–14

The three issues that received the most attention in these two verses were the terms that Paul used to refer to the church (ἐκκλησία, “church”), Judaism (Ἰουδαϊσμός, “Judaism”) and his former zeal (ζηλωτής, “zealot”): Three studies on the term ἐκκλησία (“church”) should be mentioned: Paul Trebilco 4 4 P. Trebilco, “Why Did the Early Christians Call Themselves ἡ ἐκκλησία?”, New Testament Studies 57:3 (2011), pp. 440–460. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688511000087 For a response, see G.H. van Kooten, “ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ: The ‘Church of God’ and the Civic Assemblies (ἐκκλησίαι) of the Greek Cities in the Roman Empire: A Response to Paul Trebilco and Richard A. Horsley”, New Testament Studies 58:4 (2012), pp. 522–548. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868851200015X (2011) argues that the term (used in v. 13) was first used by the Hellenists in Early Christianity to refer to themselves because of its occurrence in the LXX. They used it instead of συναγωγή (“synagogue”) because the latter was already used by Jewish communities to refer to themselves. By means of ἐκκλησία the link to the people of God in the Hebrew Scriptures could be expressed and the distinction from Jewish communities was also clear. G.K. Beale 5 5 G.K. Beale, “The Background of ἐκκλησία Revisited”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38:2 (2015), pp. 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X15609206 (2015) offers further evidence for the claim that Paul’s use of this term is best understood in the light of the LXX and not in terms of a Graeco-Roman background. According to Ralph J. Korner 6 6 R.J. Korner, The Origin and Meaning of ekklēsia in the Early Jesus Movement (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 98, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004344990 (2017), an association describing itself as ἐκκλησία (“church”) would not have been perceived as anti-imperial in the New Testament era although it was counter-oligarchic. Furthermore, Korner is of the opinion that the use of this term instead of “synagogue” does not necessarily imply that Paul and his congregations were moving away from Judaism. Four studies focused on Paul’s former life in Judaism: Markus Cromhout 7 7 M. Cromhout, “Paul’s ‘Former Conduct in the Judean Way of Life’ (Gal 1:13) ... Or Not?”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 65:1 (2009), pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v65i1.127 (2009) discusses Paul’s statement in vv. 13–14 from the perspective of cultural anthropology, in particular ethnicity theory. Cromhout concludes that Paul’s claim about his Jewishness seems to be corroborated by his other letters and it should thus not be seen as a mere rhetorical ploy. According to Matthew V. Novenson 8 8 M.V. Novenson, “Paul’s Former Occupation in Ioudaismos”, in: M.W. Elliott, S.J. Hafemann, N.T. Wright and J. Frederick (eds.), Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 24–39. (2014), one should not read Paul’s statement as referring to what we nowadays refer to as “Judaism”. It rather refers to “a particular kind of ethnos-bending activity … a traditional political cause … his former occupation in a movement for the defence of Jewish ancestral ways, a sectarian political program”. 9 9 Op. cit., p. 39. Dieter Sänger 10 10 D. Sänger, “Ἰουδαϊσμός – ἰουδαΐζειν – ἰουδαϊκῶς: Sprachliche und semantische Überlegungen im Blick auf Gal 1,13f. und 2,14”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 108:1 (2017), pp. 150–185. https://doi.org/10.1515/znw-2017-0005 (2017) is of the opinion that the term Ἰουδαϊσμός (“Judaism”) and its cognates (used in 1:13ff. and 2:14) should not be understood as only meaning “Judean” (i.e., in an ethnic-regional sense). These terms also denote a religious dimension. Daniel Boyarin 11 11 D. Boyarin, “Ioudaismos within Paul: A Modified Reading of Galatians 1:13–14”, in: F. Ábel (ed.), The Message of Paul the Apostle within Second (2019) proposes a modified reading of the term Ἰουδαϊσμός (“Judaism”). Paul uses the expression “traditions of my ancestors” in v. 14 in the same way that it is used in Mark 7. This implies that Paul was specifically referring to his conduct in Judaism as a Pharisee. Several studies were devoted to the interpretation of the concept “zeal”: Gerbern S. Oegema 12

(Lanham MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2019), pp. 167–178. Temple Judaism

(2002) believes that the pre-Christian Paul was influenced by the Maccabean ideology of zeal for God, that Paul knew Maccabean history very well, and that he was a member of a militant movement in Judaism. Torrey Seland 13 12 G.S. Oegema, “Zum jüdischen Hintergrund des Apostels Paulus nach Gal 1,13–14”, in: S. Folker (ed.), Grenzgänge: Menschen und Schicksale zwischen jüdischer, christlicher und deutscher Identität: Festschrift für Diethard Aschoff (Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 11, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2002), pp. 61–74. See also later: G.S. Oegema, “1 and 2 Maccabees in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians”, in: F. Avemarie, P. Bukovec and S. Krauter, M. Tilly (eds.), Die Makkabäer (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.382, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), pp. 345–360, https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-155252-6 , and G.S. Oegema, “The Reception of 1 and 2 Maccabees in the Letters of Paul”, in: S.E. Porter and C.D. Land (eds.), Paul and Scripture (Pauline Studies 10, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2019), pp. 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391512_005 (2002) thinks that Philo’s references to zealotry in Palestine can help one to understand the zeal Paul refers to in v. 14 better. From Philo’s observations, it is clear that these early Zealots did not form a movement/party. They individually resisted what they regarded as gross transgressions of the Jewish law. John Ashton 14 13 T. Seland, “Saul of Tarsus and Early Zealotism: Reading Gal 1,13–14 in Light of Philo’s Writings”, Biblica 83:4 (2002), pp. 449–471. (2008) investigates several hypotheses that have been advanced to explain why Paul persecuted the church. Ashton believes that although one cannot determine exactly what it was, it must have been something related to what the new movement believed about Jesus that was so offensive to Paul that it inclined him towards persecuting it. In a study of the concept “zeal” in Romans 10, Galatians 1 and Philippians 3, Dane C. Ortlund 15 14 J. Ashton, “Why Did Paul Persecute the ‘Church of God’?”, Scripture Bulletin 38:2 (2008), pp. 61–68. (2012) argues that although Dunn rightly criticises the neglect of the horizontal aspect in the understanding of the concept, Dunn himself neglects the substance of the matter. Zeal fundamentally had to do with obedience to God and his law. According to Benjamin J. Lappenga 16 15 D.C. Ortlund, Zeal without Knowledge: The Concept of Zeal in Romans 10, Galatians 1, and Philippians 3 (Library of New Testament Studies 472, London/New York NY: T & T Clark, 2012). (2016), the model that Paul has in mind in v. 14 is Elijah: “[H]is Elijah-like zeal (1 Kgs 19:14–18) has been redirected in light of his calling as an Isaianic servant-like apostle to the Gentiles (Isa 49:1–6).” 17 16 B.J. Lappenga, Paul’s Language of ζῆλος: Monosemy and the Rhetoric of Identity and Practice (Biblical Interpretation Series 137, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004302457 František Ábel 18 17 Op. cit., p. 146. (2019) is of the opinion that Paul used the term “zealous” in Galatians in the sense that it was used in the Greek milieu, but his idea of what was to be emulated differed from the generally accepted view due to what was revealed to him by God. Two studies on translation issues should also be mentioned: Daniel R. Schwartz 19 18 F. Ábel, “ζῆλος According to Paul: The Concept of ζῆλος in Galatians in the Context of Paul’s Divine Vocation”, in: F. Ábel (ed.), The Message of Paul the Apostle within Second Temple Judaism (Lanham MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2019), pp. 195–220. (2013) believes that the way in which Galatians 1:13–14, 2 Maccabees 8:1 and Romans 10:5 are translated in the Einheitsübersetzung wrongly creates the impression that Jewish observance of the law is only about practice and does not have any religious significance. In order to help translators in their choices about gender-inclusive language, Dan Nässelqvist 20 19 D.R. Schwartz, “Paul, the Jews, and Well-Meaning Translation: At What Price ‘Einheit’?”, Theologische Zeitschrift 69:4 (2013), pp. 372–384. https://doi.org/10.5169/seals-877672 (2016) distinguishes between three types of gender-inclusive language (gender-accurate, gender-muted and radically inclusive language). Some of the examples come from Galatians: 1:3–5, 14, 3:5.

3. Verses 15–17

Scholars approached these three verses from a variety of perspectives:

3.1 Linguistic issues

One of the issues that Moisés Silva 21 20 D. Nässelqvist, “Könsinkluderande Språk i Nästa Svenska Bibelöversättning”, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 81 (2016), pp. 169–216. (2001) discusses, is the semantic ambiguity in v. 16: Silva disagrees with Dunn’s argument that Paul uses προσανατίθημι (“lay before”) in a technical sense, referring to a consultation with people who were qualified to interpret the significance of a particular sign. Gordon D. Fee 22 21 M. Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2001 [1996], 2nd edition), pp. 58–61. (2007) investigates the way in which Paul uses the locative ἐν in 1:6, 1:16, 2:20, 3:11–12 and 3:26. According to Fee, the emphasis normally falls on how believers should maintain their life in Christ, but v. 16 is an exception, since it refers to becoming a believer. Wim Hendriks 23 22 G.D. Fee, “Paul’s Use of Locative ἐν in Galatians: On Text and Meaning in Galatians 1.6; 1.16; 2.20; 3.11–12, and 3.26”, in: C.J. Roetzel and R.L. Foster (eds.), The Impartial God: Essays in Biblical Studies in Honor of Jouette M. Bassler (New Testament Monographs 22, Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2007), pp. 170–185. (2012) discusses three problematic uses of εὐθέως (“immediately”) in the New Testament, one of which occurs in vv. 15–17 (… εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι, “I did not immediately consult flesh and blood”). According to Hendriks, in this instance, εὐθέως should be understood as an adverb of manner and means “rightly” or “naturally”.

3.2 The best way to describe the Damascus event

On the basis of vv. 15–16, Tae Hoon Kim 24 23 W. Hendriks, “εὐθέως Beyond the Temporal Meaning”, Filología Neotestamentaria 25 (2012), pp. 21–35. (2013) argues that what happened to Paul should not merely be called a “conversion”. It was a calling, since Paul offers only one reason why he was called, namely, to become the apostle to the Gentiles. In the light of evidence found in Galatians, 1 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Timothy and Acts, Giancarlo Pani 25 24 T.H. Kim, “Was Paul Converted at Damascus? Focusing on Galatians 1:15–16”, 신약연구 12:1 (2013), pp. 30–53. (2014) is of the opinion that it is best not to refer to what happened to Paul at the Damascus event as “conversion”. It should rather be called “vocation”, or even “call” and “vocation”. One of the passages that Arthur J. Dewey 26 25 G. Pani, “Paolo Sulla via di Damasco: Conversione o Vocazione?”, La Civiltà Cattolica 3925:1 (2014), pp. 32–46. (2015) considers in an investigation of the prophetic vein in developing traditions in Early Christianity, is vv. 11–16. Dewey points out that Paul described his calling in prophetic terms. This was not a mystical experience but rather a prophetic vision with far-reaching social implications. Thérèse Andrevon 27 26 A.J. Dewey, “Per omnia saecula saeculorum: Worlds Colliding and Created”, Forum 4:1 (2015), pp. 7–23. (2020) points out that the description of Paul’s experience as “conversion” is no longer appropriate. This implies that the Feast of the Conversion of Paul (25 January) should rather be referred to as the Feast of the Vocation/Call of Paul.

3.3 The Damascus event

Patrick Kéchichian, Stanislas Breton and Philippe Morel 28 27 T. Andrevon, “Faut-il rebaptiser la fête de la conversion de Paul?”, Études 4267 (2020), pp. 79–90. https://doi.org/10.3917/etu.4267.0079 (2001), respectively a writer, an exegete and an art historian, reflect on the event described in this part of the letter. Kéchichian focuses on spiritual aspects, Breton ponders the decisive events depicted here and Morel discusses four paintings relevant to the theme. Christos K. Economou 29 28 P. Kéchichian, S. Breton and P. Morel, La conversion de Paul (Collection Triptyque, Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 2001). (2002) links Paul’s ecumenical mission to this event when he realised that Christ was the fulfilment of the Jewish law. This changed him from a persecutor of the church to an apostle to the Gentiles, from Jewish introversion to an ecumenical view. Zeba A. Crook 30 29 C.K. Economou, “Paul’s Ecumenical Mission”, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 47:1/4 (2002), pp. 199–213. (2004) explains Paul’s experience in terms of the rhetoric of patronage and benefaction. According to Galatians, Paul was called by God as the divine patron-benefactor through Christ (the divine broker) and that gave rise to a change in Paul’s behaviour by which he had wrongly thought he was honouring God. He thus had to understand loyalty to his divine patron in a different way. David C. Sim 31 30 Z.A. Crook, Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty and Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 130, Berlin/New York NY: De Gruyter, 2004), pp. 170‑179. (2006) critically discusses Paul’s claim in this part of the letter that Christ appeared to him and that the revelation that he received was exclusive. Sim points out that accepting Paul’s claim raises grave theological problems. After a thorough investigation of 1 Corinthians 9:1, 15:8, 2 Corinthians 4:6 and Galatians 1:12–16, Ingo Broer 32 31 D.C. Sim, “The Appearances of the Risen Christ to Paul: Identifying Their Implications and Complications”, Australian Biblical Review 54 (2006), pp. 1–12. (2010) concludes that Paul must have experienced the appearance of the risen Christ as a very complex event with many facets, since he recounted it in a variety of ways and always from a perspective linked to the situation in which his readers found themselves. Broer also suggests that this variety may be the result of later reflection by Paul. On the basis of vv. 15–16, 1 Corinthians 15:9–10 and Philippians 3:4–11, Johnny Awwad 33 32 I. Broer, “Die Erscheinung des Auferstandenen vor Paulus bei Damaskus”, in: M. Bachmann and B. Kollmann (eds.), Umstrittener Galaterbrief: Studien zur Situierung und Theologie des Paulus-Schreibens (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 106, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2010), pp. 57–93. (2011) describes Paul’s experience as follows: He experienced a Christophany in that Christ revealed himself to him. This became the content of his gospel, and from then onwards he viewed his task as carrying the person of Christ (which dwelled in him) all over the world. According to Brian Schmisek 34 33 J. Awwad, “From Saul to Paul: The Conversion of Paul the Apostle”, Theological Review 32:1 (2011), pp. 3–14. (2011), on the basis of v. 16, 1 Corinthians 9:1 and 15:8, one may interpret what happened to Paul as an interior but a real experience.

3.4 Underlying historical events

Richard I. Pervo 35 34 B. Schmisek, “Paul’s Vision of the Risen Lord”, Biblical Theology Bulletin 41:2 (2011), pp. 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146107911403652 (2004) discusses the versions of Paul’s conversion in Acts and in Paul’s letters, amongst others in this passage, as well as the way in which it was depicted in other early Christian traditions. Pervo believes that the versions in Acts were historically less accurate than Paul’s own versions but that they were widely taken up. Alexis Bunine 36 35 R.I. Pervo, “Converting Paul: The Call of the Apostle in Early Christian Literature”, Forum 7:2 (2004), pp. 127–158. See also the study by Daryl D. Schmidt, complementing Pervo’s study: “Paul on Paul: Galatians 1:13–24”, Forum 7:2 (2004), pp. 177–194. (2006) disagrees with scholars who interpret v. 16 as indicating that Paul began to evangelise Gentiles immediately after his conversion. According to Bunine, this only happened on the eve of the Jerusalem conference. This implies that the Jerusalem conference occurred earlier than is normally accepted. Juan Migual Díaz Rodelas 37 36 A. Bunine, “Paul: ‘Apôtre des Gentils’ ou ... ‘des Juifs d’abord, puis des Grecs’?”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 82:1 (2006), pp. 35–68. https://doi.org/10.2143/ETL.82.1.2014920 (2006) contends that Galatians allows us to accept that Paul visited Jerusalem before experiencing the Damascus event, and that at first his relationship to the Christians in Jerusalem was normal. It only changed at a later stage. Based on a careful study of vv. 15–17 and 1 Corinthians 15:8 (in particular, Paul’s language about abortion), Matthew W. Mitchell 38 37 J.M. Díaz Rodelas, “Pablo en Jerusalén: Los Datos de Gálatas”, Estudios Bíblicos 64:3/4 (2006), pp. 485–495. (2009) thinks that the fact that Paul’s claims to be an apostle were rejected, gave rise to his mission to the Gentiles. Paul Bony 39 38 M.W. Mitchell, Abortion and the Apostolate: A Study in Pauline Conversion, Rhetoric, and Scholarship (Gorgias Biblical Studies 42, Piscataway NJ: (2011) suggests that Paul had two conversions. The second one occurred somewhere between the writing of 1 Thessalonians and Romans, since his feelings towards the Jews seem to have changed. This might have been due to reflection on his part on the mystery of the election of Israel. Thomas E. Phillips 40

Gorgias, 2009). https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463236229

(2015) is of the opinion that if one only uses Paul’s letters as source, it is clear that he became a Christian before he started to persecute the church. At first, he shared the views of people such as Peter and James and resisted the inclusion of Gentiles into the church, persecuting them in a non-violent way. After his experience of the Christophany he changed his mind and, accordingly, then faced a similar non-violent opposition from leaders such as Peter and James.

3.5 Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures

In a contribution on Paul’s use of Second Isaiah in Galatians, Martinus C. de Boer 41 39 P. Bony, “La conversion, ou les conversions, de saint Paul?”, Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique 112:1 (2011), pp. 85–104. (2002) argues that there are clear indications that Paul knew Second Isaiah and that he used insights from it to formulate his own apocalyptic eschatology. De Boer discusses 1:15–16, 4:19, 21–5:1 and 6:15. Moisés Silva 42 40 T.E. Phillips, “When Did Paul Become a Christian? Rereading Paul’s Autobiography in Galatians and Biography in Acts”, in: M. Froelich, M. Kochenash, T.E. Phillips and I. Park (eds.), Christian Origins and the New Testament in the Greco-Roman Context: Essays in Honor of Dennis R. Macdonald (Claremont Studies in New Testament and Christian Origins, Claremont CA: Claremont Press, 2015), pp. 180–201. (2007) interprets Paul’s allusions to Jeremiah 1:5 and Isaiah 49:1–6 in vv. 15–16 as follows: Paul regarded his ministry as related to that of the prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures and even as its culmination. His emphasis on divine initiative and the importance of the eschatological perspective are also to be noted. Hetty Lalleman 43 41 M.C. de Boer, “Second Isaiah and Paul’s Eschatology in the Letter to the Galatians”, in: F. Postma, K. Spronk and E. Talstra (eds.), The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy: Festschrift for Henk Leene (Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese van de Bijbel en zijn Tradisies Supplement Series 3, Maastricht: Shaker Publishing, 2002), pp. 35–43. (2011) explains Paul’s self-understanding in the light of Jeremiah. In the case of Galatians, Lalleman draws attention to the similarities between vv. 15–16 and Jeremiah 1, in particular the fact that the authority of the one called by God is underlined in both passages. On the basis of the similarities between Paul’s statement in vv. 15–16 on the one hand and Isaiah 49:1 and Jeremiah 1:5 on the other, Tae Hoon Kim 44 42 M. Silva, “Galatians”, in: G. Beale and D. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2007), pp. 785–810. (2015) argues that Paul saw an analogy between what happened to him and the calling of the Servant of the Lord and Jeremiah. Thus, Paul’s experience is best described as a “calling” and not as a “conversion”. According to Lutz Doering 45 43 H. Lalleman, “Paul’s Self-Understanding in the Light of Jeremiah: A Case Study into the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament”, in: J.A. Grant, A. Lo and G.J. Wenham (eds.), A God of Faithfulness: Essays (2016), Paul draws on several prophets for understanding his own position. In the case of Jeremiah, he specifically makes use of the notion of “being set apart by God” (vv. 15–16) and a struggle with false prophets/apostles. From the fact that Paul uses Isaiah 49:1–6 to describe his experience in these verses, Bart J. Koet 46

(Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 538, New York NY/London: T & T Clark, 2011), pp. 96–111. in Honor of J. Gordon McConville on His 60th Birthday

(2017) deduces that Paul understood himself as following in the footsteps of the Jewish prophets. Furthermore, Luke describes Paul as a Jew loyal to the law, focusing on the Jews, but as then finding his way to the Gentiles on the basis of Isaiah 48:6 – an indication that Luke depicts him in the light of his (i.e., Paul’s) self-understanding. Jason J.C. Jung 47 44 T.H. Kim, “Paul’s Experience at Damascus According to Quotations of the Old Testament: On the Basis of Galatians 1:15–16a”, 성경과 신학 76 (2015), pp. 101–128. (2018) disagrees with scholars who link Paul’s reference to his mother’s womb to the Hebrew Scriptures, and instead, proposes that Paul has his birth as a Roman citizen in mind. God called him as a Roman citizen so that he would preach Christ to the Gentiles. Arturo Bravo 48 45 L. Doering, “The Commissioning of Paul: Light from the Prophet Jeremiah on the Self-Understanding of the Apostle?”, in: H. Najman and K. Schmid (eds.), Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 173, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2016), pp. 544–565. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004320253_044 (2020) discusses Paul’s use of quotations from the prophets in vv. 15–16, 3:11 and 4:27. According to Bravo, Paul uses them to legitimise his apostleship and to show that salvation is a gift from God and not the result of human efforts.

3.6 The reference to Jerusalem

Michael Bachmann 49 46 B.J. Koet, “Paul, a Light for the Gentiles: Paul as Interpreter of Scriptures in Galatians 1:13–16 and in the Acts of the Apostles”, in: F. Wilk and M. Öhler (eds.), Paulinische Schriftrezeption: Grundlagen – Ausprägungen – Wirkungen – Wertungen (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 268, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), pp. 249–274. https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666540608.249 (2000) disagrees with Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s 50 47 J.J.C. Jung, “Separated from My Mother’s Womb: An Appraisal of Paul’s Testimony in Galatians 1:15”, Biblical Theology Bulletin 48:1 (2018), pp. 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146107917746579 argument that Paul uses the term Ἱεροσόλυμα (“Jerusalem”) in vv. 17–18 because he is writing to Gentile Christians. Bachmann points out that this does not hold for the term Ἰερουσαλήμ (“Jerusalem”) used later in 4:25–26. Frederick E. Brenk 51 48 A. Bravo, “Los Profetas y San Pablo en la Carta a los Gálatas”, Cuestiones Teológicas 36:86 (2020), pp. 265–277. (2011) traces the double nomenclature for Jerusalem (Paul uses both terms in Galatians) to the Early Hellenistic period when Greeks possibly transmitted the name of the city in more than one form.

3.7 Paul’s visit to Arabia

According to Martin Hengel 52 49 M. Bachmann, “ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΑ und ΙΕΡΟΥΣΑΛΗΜ im Galaterbrief”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 91:3 (2000), pp. 288–289. Also available in: M. Bachmann, Von Paulus zur Apokalypse – und weiter: Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Neuen Testament (samt englischsprachigen Summaries) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 91, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 71–72. (2002), scholars often overlook the importance of Paul’s visit to Arabia (i.e., Nabataea). This visit was longer than scholars usually accept and was characterised by successful missionary accomplishments by Paul. However, he also experienced forceful opposition from the synagogues and the government. Carsten Burfeind 53 50 J. Murphy-O’Connor, “ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΑ/ΙΕΡΟΥΣΑΛΗΜ in Galatians”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 90:3/4 (1999), pp. 280–281. (2004) highlights another facet of Paul’s argument in v. 17. Paul implies that he was not only called immediately to be an apostle but also that he was immediately called to be an apostle to the Gentiles. Chulhong B. Kim 54 51 F.E. Brenk, “Hierosolyma: The Greek Name of Jerusalem (in memoriam Günter Neumann)”, Glotta 87:1–4 (2011), pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.13109/glot.2011.87.14.1 (2009) proposes that Paul went to Arabia because he identified with the Servant of the Lord and followed Isaiah 66:19.

3.8 Theological issues

Antje and Michael Labahn 55 52 M. Hengel, “Paul in Arabia”, Bulletin for Biblical Research 12:1 (2002), pp. 47–66. (2000) are of the view that the insight that Jesus was the Son of God was for Paul the crucial aspect in the proclamation of the gospel. Accordingly, this title was also very important for Paul’s self-understanding, as is clear from v. 16. A. Katherine Grieb 56 53 C. Burfeind, “Paulus in Arabien”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 95:1–2 (2004), pp. 129–130. https://doi.org/10.1515/zntw.2004.002 (2005) draws attention to the disruptive nature of the grace in Christ whereby Paul (and others) were called by God to a new type of freedom and service. Kathy Ehrensperger 57 54 C.B. Kim, “Why Did Paul Go to Arabia? Paul’s Prophetic Self-Understanding Revealed in Galatians 1:17”, 신약논단 16:1 (2009), pp. 173–198. (2007) interprets vv. 15–16 as an indication that Paul placed his encounter of the Risen Christ in the prophetic discourse of Scripture, with “grace” as a reference to his calling by God. For Paul, being called by God and being sent by him was one event. Anthony Towey 58 55 A. Labahn and M. Labahn, “Jesus als Sohn Gottes bei Paulus: Eine soteriologische Grundkonstante der paulinischen Christologie”, in: U. Schnelle, T. Söding and M. Labahn (eds.), Paulinische Christologie: Exegetische Beiträge: Hans Hübner zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), pp. 97–120. (2009) highlights the pastoral implications of Paul’s experience at the Damascus event, in particular three key insights that transformed his ministry (and that may be applied to our current context): the awareness that he had persecuted God’s church, meeting the Risen Christ, and his desire to bring the gospel to outsiders. Rollin A. Ramsaran 59 56 A.K. Grieb, “‘The One Who Called You...’: Vocation and Leadership in the Pauline Literature”, Interpretation 59:2 (2005), pp. 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/002096430505900205 (2012) investigates “in Christ” and “Christ in” as expressions of religious experience in Galatians and finds that interior religious experience plays an important role in the letter, in particular in the case of “Christ in” texts such as 1:16 and 2:20. Ramsaran also highlights the link between “Christ in” texts and “in Christ” texts, language of “belonging” and the presence of the Spirit – all regarded as giving rise to ethical actions. According to Daniel Marguerat 60 57 K. Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (Library of New Testament Studies 325, London: T & T Clark, 2007), pp. 81–86. (2013), Paul may be described as a mystic, but he did not practise an evasive type of spirituality or dismiss the burdens of life. His Christic mysticism was motivated by his theological interpretation of the cross, implying a fundamental incarnation of God. In the case of Galatians, Marguerat considers 1:15b–16 and 2:19–20. In a study of the politics of peace in Paul’s letters, Jeremy Gabrielson 61 58 A. Towey, “Damascus and Pastoral Ministry”, in: M.A. Hayes (ed.), In Praise of Paul (London: St Pauls, 2009), pp. 48–57. (2013) argues that Galatians shows how Paul’s trajectory of violence came to a sudden end when Christ was revealed to him at the Damascus event and that his life was thereafter put on a non-violent trajectory. That Paul refers to his and the Galatians’ calling as both happening through grace (1:6, 1:15) is taken by Orrey McFarland 62 59 R.A. Ramsaran, “‘In Christ’ and ‘Christ in’ as Expressions of Religious Experience: Testing the Waters in Galatians”, in: C. Shantz and R.A. Werline (eds.), Experientia, Volume 2: Linking Text and Experience (SBL – Early Judaism and Its Literature 35, Atlanta GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), pp. 161–180. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt32bzkm.12 (2013) as an indication that Paul rhetorically and theologically identifies with them so that their stories are intertwined. Accordingly, Paul’s autobiographical testimony in Chapters 1 and 2 cannot be separated from Chapters 3 to 6. Joel Antônio Ferreira 63 60 D. Marguerat, “Paul the Mystic”, in: J. Krans, B.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, P.-B. Smit and A.W. Zwiep (eds.), Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer (Novum Testamentum Supplements 149, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2013), pp. 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004250369_007 (2013) highlights four fundamental concepts in the depiction of Paul’s calling in 1:11–17a: revelation, election, vocation and mission. Paul’s calling thus gave rise to his missionary spirit to other peoples of his time. Markus Öhler 64 61 J. Gabrielson, Paul’s Non-Violent Gospel: The Theological Politics of Peace in Paul’s Life and Letters (Eugene OR: Pickwick, 2013), pp. 79–138. (2016) discusses the semantic field of “election” in the New Testament and thus also Paul’s calling narrated in vv. 11–17. In this instance, Öhler highlights Paul’s self-understanding as a chosen apostle to the Gentiles. This made him independent of others and sure that he was on the right path. Karl Olav Sandnes 65 62 O. McFarland, “‘The One Who Calls in Grace’: Paul’s Rhetorical and Theological Identification with the Galatians”, Horizons in Biblical Theology 35:2 (2013), pp. 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1163/18712207-12341258 (2017) is of the opinion that Paul’s self-concept was rooted in the prophetic tradition in Israel, in particular Isaiah 40–66. In the case of Galatians, Sandnes draws attention to a cluster of motifs found in 1:15‑16a and 2:2.

4. Verses 18–20

Not many studies were published specifically on this part of the pericope. The studies that were published addressed a variety of issues:

4.1 Linguistic issues

Albert L.A. Hogeterp 66 63 J.A. Ferreira, “A Vocação de Paulo em Gálatas”, Revista Pistis & Praxis 5:2 (2013), pp. 425–441. https://doi.org/10.7213/revistapistispraxis.05.002.DS06 (2014) views the Dead Sea Scrolls as “Semitic evidence for a Jewish world of thought in early Roman period Israel”, enabling us to understand the Jewish orientation of the church at Jerusalem better. Hogeterp discusses three examples of language contact between them and Paul: the phrase ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν (“to see Cephas”) in v. 18, the agreement to remember the poor (2:10) and the Antioch incident (2:11–14).

4.2 Peter

Chul Hae Kim 67 64 M. Öhler, “Die Erwählung der Heiden und ihrer Apostel”, Protokolle zur Bibel 16:1 (2016), pp. 25–42. (2007) focuses on the relationship between Paul and Peter (the apostles for the Gentiles and the circumcised respectively) as reflected in Galatians 1–2 and 2 Peter 3:15–16. According to Kim, Peter eventually became spiritually mature and recognised that Paul was a fellow worker of the gospel, thus becoming “a beloved brother” (according to 2 Peter). Rainer Dillmann 68 65 K.O. Sandnes, “Paul, an Isaianic Prophet?”, in: T. Wasserman, G. Andersson and D. Willgren (eds.), Studies in Isaiah: History, Theology and Reception (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 654, London/New York NY: Bloomsbury Publishing/T & T Clark, 2017), pp. 139–156. https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567667199_0014 (2008) gives an overview of the tensions between Peter and Paul as reflected in the New Testament. In spite of the tensions, Dillmann believes that the two had a common cause: the proclamation of the gospel; and that the encounters and tensions between them dynamically moved the development of early Christian communities forward. Eduardo de la Serna 69 66 A.L.A. Hogeterp, “Paul and the Jerusalem Church: Light from the Scrolls on Graeco-Semitic Language Contacts and Ethics of Gospel Mission”, in: J.-S. Rey (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 102, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2014), pp. 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004230071_014 (2008) discusses the depiction of Peter in the writings of Paul and shows that they indicate that already Peter’s authority was recognised outside Syro-Palestine. The fact that Peter is not mentioned in the Deutero-Pauline letters is interpreted as an indication that these authors did not find it necessary to resort to the figure of Peter to validate their writings.

4.3 James

Matti Myllykoski 70 67 C.H. Kim, “The Influence of the Apostle Paul and Apostle Peter on Each Other, According to 2 Peter 3:15–16 and Galatians 1–2”, 신약연구 6:1 (2007), pp. 147–180. (2006 and 2007) offers a detailed overview of past and present scholarship on James the Just. In the case of Galatians, Myllykoski discusses research on the depiction of James in these verses, 2:1–10 (the Jerusalem conference) and 2:11–21 (the Antioch incident).

5. Verses 21–24

Paul Trebilco 71 68 R. Dillmann, “Begegnungen voller Spannung: Beobachtungen zum Mit- und Gegeneinander von Petrus und Paulus im Neuen Testament”, Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 33 (2008), pp. 25–39. (2011) is of the opinion that the term ἐκκλησία (“church”, occurring in v. 22) was first used by the Hellenists in Early Christianity to refer to themselves because of its occurrence in the LXX. They used ἐκκλησία instead of συναγωγή (“synagogue”) because the latter was already used by Jewish communities to refer to themselves. By means of ἐκκλησία the link to the people of God in the Hebrew Scriptures could be expressed and the distinction from Jewish communities was also clear. G.K. Beale 72 69 E. de la Serna, “La Figura de Pedro en los Escritos de Pablo”, Revista Bíblica 70:3/4 (2008), pp. 133–171. https://doi.org/10.47182/rb.70.n3-4-2008170 (2015) offers further evidence for the claim that Paul’s use of the term ἐκκλησία is best understood in the light of the LXX and not in terms of a Graeco-Roman background. According to Ralph J. Korner 73 70 M. Myllykoski, “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part I)”, Currents in Biblical Research 5:1 (2006), pp. 73–122, https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993X06068700 , and “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part II)”, Currents in Biblical Research 6:1 (2007), pp. 11–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993X07080242 (2017), an association describing itself as ἐκκλησία would not have been perceived as anti-imperial in the New Testament era although it was counter-oligarchic. Furthermore, Korner is of the opinion that the use of this term instead of “synagogue” does not necessarily imply that Paul and his congregations were moving away from Judaism.

6. Studies on the pericope as a whole

6.1 Wirkungsgeschichte

Laura J. Hunt 74 71 P. Trebilco, “Why Did the Early Christians Call Themselves ἡ ἐκκλησία?”, New Testament Studies 57:3 (2011), pp. 440–460. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688511000087 For a response, see G.H. van Kooten, “ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ: The ‘Church of God’ and the Civic Assemblies (ἐκκλησίαι) of the Greek Cities in the Roman Empire: A Response to Paul Trebilco and Richard A. Horsley”, New Testament Studies 58:4 (2012), pp. 522–548. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868851200015X (2008) draws attention to the tension between Paul’s distance from and indebtedness to Jerusalem in vv. 18–24 and appropriates this for the American context by raising the question as to whether American Christians are not over-identifying with their own version of Christianity. Boris Repschinski 75 72 G.K. Beale, “The Background of ἐκκλησία Revisited”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38:2 (2015), pp. 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X15609206 (2013) compares the ways in which Paul and Ignatius of Loyola reflected on events in their life as an opportunity to recognise the presence of God. Both of them emphasise God’s will without offering systematic autobiographies or memoires. There are also differences. For example, for Paul, his own life was a proof of the truth of the gospel and his experiences thus had argumentative value (as can be seen in 1:10–2:14) – something that does not happen in the case of Ignatius. According to Keith Maynor 76 73 R.J. Korner, The Origin and Meaning of ekklēsia in the Early Jesus Movement (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 98, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004344990 (2018), the central issue in 1:16–2:21 is not so much Paul’s polemics, but rather his testimony about the way in which he was transformed at the Damascus event. Maynor develops the implications of this insight for current transformational leadership theory.

6.2 Rhetorical approaches

Johan S. Vos 77 74 L.J. Hunt, “Where Do You Come From? Cultural Confusion in Galatia and the United States – Galatians 1:18–24”, Evangelical Journal 26:2 (2008), pp. 85–89. (2002) distinguishes between different types of rhetoric/argumentation in Paul’s letters and explains Paul’s rhetorical strategy in each instance in detail. Vos describes Galatians 1:1–2:11 as revelatory rhetoric. According to James D. Hester 78 75 B. Repschinski, “Lebensreflexion als Ort der Gotteserfahrung: Ignatius von Loyola und Paulus von Tarsus im Vergleich”, Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 135:2/3 (2013), pp. 230–251. (2002), Paul uses various forms typical of epideictic rhetoric in Galatians 1 and 2 in order to assert his authority, as well as the authority of the gospel. D. Francois Tolmie 79 76 K. Maynor, “Social and Cultural Textures in Galatians 1”, Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership 8:1 (2018), pp. 226–235. (2005) offers a text-based rhetorical analysis of Galatians. Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope is summarised as recounting events from his life in order to prove the divine origin of his gospel. The type of argument that he uses is thus one based on the notion of divine authorisation. Jean-Noël Aletti 80 77 J.S. Vos, Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus: Studien zur antiken Rhetorik (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.149, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157227-2 Earlier versions of the contributions on Galatians: J.S. Vos, “Die Argumentation des Paulus in Galater 1,1–2,10”, in: J. Lambrecht (ed.), The Truth of the Gospel (Galatians 1:1–4:11) (Benedictina Monographic Series 12, Rome: Benedictina Publishers, 1993), pp. 11–43, J.S. Vos, “Charismatisch en Gevestigd Gezag in de Gemeente: Een Spanningsveld in de Brief van Paulus aan de Galaten”, in: J. Delobel and H.J. de Jonge (eds.), Vroegchristelijke Gemeenten tussen Ideaal en Werkelijkheid (Kampen: Kok, 2001), pp. 30–39, J.S. Vos, “Die hermeneutische Antinomie bei Paulus (Galater 3.11–12; Römer 10.5–10)”, New Testament Studies 38:2 (1992), pp. 254–270, J.S. Vos, “Paulus en de Schrift: Hermeneutiek en Retoriek in Gal 3,6–11”, in: T. Baarda, H.J. de Jonge and M.J.J. Menken (eds.), Jodendom en Vroeg Christendom: Continuïteit en Discontinuïteit (Kampen: Kok, 1991), pp. 63–79. (2005) regards 1:11–2:21 as a unified argument: 1:11–12 is the propositio, 2:14b–21 is a brief speech bringing the argument to a climax and 2:16 reformulates Paul’s gospel while also serving as the thesis of the next two chapters. Debbie Hunn 81 78 J.D. Hester, “Epideictic Rhetoric and Persona in Galatians 1 and 2”, in: M.D. Nanos (ed.), The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 2002), pp. 181–196. Earlier version: J.D. Hester, “Placing the Blame: The Presence of Epideictic in Galatians 1 and 2”, in: D.F. Watson (ed.), Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplements 50, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 281–307. (2010) notes that scholars understand Paul’s rhetorical strategy in 1:13–2:21 in different ways: defence of his apostleship, denial of accusations, and depiction of himself as a paradigm. Hunn argues that Paul distinguishes between two options in 1:10 – pleasing people or pleasing God – and then defends his gospel by referring to his experience at the Damascus event and what motivated him in life. In a rhetorical analysis of 1:13–2:21, Bartolomeo Puca 82 79 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 (2011) draws attention to Paul’s paradoxical self-praise. Thereby Paul shifts the attention from his own personal experience to God, thus emphasising the divine origin of his gospel and offering an example of faithfulness to it. According to Ian J. Elmer 83 80 J.-N. Aletti, “Galates 1–2: Quelle fonction et quelle démonstration?”, Biblica 86:3 (2005), pp. 305–323. English version: J.-N. Aletti, New Approaches for Interpreting the Letters of Saint Paul: Collected Essays: Rhetoric, Soteriology, Christology and Ecclesiology: Translated from the (2013), Paul’s opponents used their own version of his conversion and his apostleship against him, and Paul responded by using the narratio of the letter as a rhetorical strategy to counter such attempts in 1:13–2:14. Antonio Pitta 84

(Subsidia Biblica 43, Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2012), pp. 215–236. French by Peggy Manning Meyer

6.3 Narrative approaches

Edward Adams 85 81 D. Hunn, “Pleasing God or Pleasing People? Defending the Gospel in Galatians 1–2”, Biblica 91:1 (2010), pp. 24–49. (2000) analyses four facets of point of view in 1:13–2:14 (time, space, psychology and ideology) and shows how they serve Paul’s rhetorical goal of establishing a self-defence against his opponents. Timothy Wiarda 86 82 B. Puca, Una Periautologia Paradossale: Analisi Retorico-Letteraria di Gal 1,13–2,21 (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 186, Roma: Pontificio Università Gregoriana, 2011). (2004) analyses plot and character in 1:13–2:21. According to Wiarda, such an analysis does not only confirm the traditional interpretation of the narrative (that Paul uses it to establish his credentials) but also shows that it has a definitive paradigmatic goal. Simon Butticaz 87 83 I.J. Elmer, “Setting the Record Straight at Galatia: Paul’s narratio (Gal 1:13–2:14) as Response to the Galatian Conflict”, in: W. Mayer and B. Neil (eds.), Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 121, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), pp. 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110291940.21 (2018) investigates this pericope and 1 Corinthians 15:8–10 and shows how the narrative mode makes it possible for Paul to find continuity in his identity but also to integrate disparate elements in it, against the background of the collective memory that he shares with other believers. One of the passages that Greger Andersson 88 84 A. Pitta, “I Gradi della Mimesi nella Lettera ai Galati”, Liber Annuus 65 (2015), pp. 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.LA.4.000113 (2019) discusses in a study of “narrating selves” in the Bible is 1:11–2:14. Andersson highlights the fact that it is used in this instance by Paul both to defend his authority and to offer himself as a role model.

6.4 Theological issues

In an analysis of 1:11–24, Elvis Elengabeka 89 85 E. Adams, “Ideology and Point of View in Galatians 1–2: A Critical Linguistic Analysis”, in: S.E. Porter (ed.), Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 193, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 205–254. (2007) highlights the way in which charismatic initiative and institutional regulation worked in synergy. For current missionaries, this shows that trust in an institution and faithfulness to the Spirit are both important. They should thus cultivate their personal creativity but also always be open for inputs from the side of the institution. Chapter 4: Galatians 2:1–10 A broad variety of issues in this pericope were investigated. The subject that received the most attention (by far) was the historical issues that are reflected in the pericope. This will be discussed first and then an overview of studies on other issues will follow.

1. Introductory issues

1.1 Historical issues underlying the pericope

The three aspects that received the most attention were the relationship between the version in this pericope and the Book of Acts, the events at the conference, and the agreement that was reached (according to Paul) about the poor. The relationship between the version in this pericope and the Book of Acts According to Martino Conti 1 86 T. Wiarda, “Plot and Character in Galatians 1–2”, Tyndale Bulletin 55:2 (2004), pp. 231–252. https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.29175 (2002), an investigation of the Jerusalem conference narrated in Acts 15 and this pericope shows that tensions regarding circumcision and the law were originally separate issues but that they were later integrated by Luke and linked to one event, i.e., the meeting in Jerusalem. Holger Zeigan 2 87 S. Butticaz, “The Construction of Paul’s Self in His Writings: Narrative Identity, Social Memory and Metaphorical Truth”, Biblical Interpretation 26:2 (2018), pp. 244–265. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685152-00262p06 (2005) provides a comprehensive overview of research on the relationship between this pericope and the possible parallels in Acts. Zeigan classifies research on this issue in terms of four categories: studies accepting a correlation between the version in Galatians and Acts 15, studies linking it to Acts 18:22 (a “Spätdatierung”), studies linking it to Acts 11, and studies based on correlations between it and other texts in Acts, such as 9:26–30. James B. Dabhi 3 88 G. Andersson, “Narrating Selves and the Literary in the Bible”, Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas 17:1 (2019), pp. 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.2019.0005 (2006) believes that 2:1–10 and Acts 15:1–21 refer to the same event but that Paul and the author of Acts present the events in different ways and that the two versions thus reflect different theologies developing in the Early Church. Based on 1:13–2:10 and Acts, Alexis Bunine 4 89 E. Elengabeka, “Paul en mission: Fidélité à l’Esprit et confiance à l’institution”, Spiritus (Revue d’Expériences et de Recherches Missionnaires) 187 (2007), pp. 155–164. (2007) argues that Paul did not immediately turn to the Gentiles after his conversion. This only happened during his stay in Syria and Cilicia, after which this became his cause. The reception of Gentiles by the church in Antioch then quickly led to the Jerusalem conference. Gregory Tatum 5 1 M. Conti, “Il Concilio Apostolico e la Lettera ai Galati (At 15,1–29; Gal 2,1–21)”, Antonianum 77:2 (2002), pp. 235–256. (2009) points out that scholars usually harmonise the accounts of the Jerusalem conference in this pericope and Acts 15 without noting any impact that it might have had on the way in which 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians are interpreted. Tatum criticises such an approach because the four texts differ substantially and offer different visions of Paul’s ministry. To harmonise them is thus not a good approach. The events at the conference Chronology Étienne Nodet 6 2 H. Zeigan, Aposteltreffen in Jerusalem: Eine forschungsgeschichtliche Studie zu Galater 2,1–10 und den möglichen lukanischen Parallelen (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 18, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005). (2014) disagrees with the view that the meeting in Jerusalem to which Paul refers in this pericope occurred seventeen years after his conversion, since it gives rise to an awkward chronology. Instead, Nodet argues that Marcion’s text helps us to compile a more realistic chronology. It implies that the meeting in Jerusalem mentioned in Acts occurred before the one mentioned in Galatians. John Townsend 7 3 J.B. Dabhi, “Was Paul Right? Reconstructing the Issue Narrated by Paul in Gal 2,1–10”, Bible Bhashyam 32:3 (2006), pp. 225–244. (2016) argues that διά (“after”/“during”) in 2:1 should not be translated as “after” (as scholars normally do) but as “during” or even “within”, which means that Paul visited Jerusalem at some stage during the fourteen-year period after his calling. If this is accepted, Paul’s letters have to be dated earlier. Titus Richard G. Fellows 8 4 A. Bunine, “Où, quand et comment les premiers paiens sont-ils entrés dans l’église? Essai de reconstitution historique”, Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique 108:4 (2007), pp. 455–482. See also A. Bunine, “Paul: ‘Apôtre des Gentils’ ou ... ‘des Juifs d’abord, puis des Grecs’?”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 82:1 (2006), pp. 35–68. https://doi.org/10.2143/ETL.82.1.2014920 (2001) proposes that “Titus” (mentioned in v. 1) is an informal name for Timothy and that Titus and Timothy (mentioned in the Corinthian letters and Acts) are the same person. According to Saya Lee 9 5 G. Tatum, “Galatians 2:1–14: Acts 15 and Paul’s Ministry in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians”, Revue Biblique 116:1 (2009), pp. 70–81. https://doi.org/10.2143/RBI.116.1.3206456 (2017), the specific expression that Paul uses (“taking Titus along with me”) might be an indication that Paul wanted to illustrate the liberty that believers have in Christ and the truth of the gospel when he took Titus with him to Jerusalem. The “false brethren” In light of Josephus’s reference in his Life to an incident in which he prevented some Jews in Galilee from forcibly circumcising two non-Jewish nobles, J.R. Harrison 10 6 É. Nodet, “Conversions de Paul: Chronologie”, Revue Biblique 121:4 (2014), pp. 539–573. (2004) explores the influence that an emerging Jewish nationalism may have had on the “false brethren” that wanted Titus to be circumcised (as Paul mentions in this pericope). According to Harrison, Jewish nationalism may have played a role in the views of the “false brethren”. Mark D. Nanos 11 7 J. Townsend, “Misunderstood New Testament Texts: Mark 2:23 and Galatians 2:1”, in: A. Avery-Peck, C.A. Evans and J. Neusner (eds.), Earliest Christianity within the Boundaries of Judaism: Essays in Honor of Bruce Chilton (The Brill Reference Library of Judaism 49, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2016), pp. 346–356. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004310339_019 (2005) is of the opinion that the term “false brethren” does not refer to Jewish Christians (thus making it an intra-group dispute), but to people from outside, “a Jewish interest group seeking to take matters into their own hand without the authority to do so”. 12 8 R.G. Fellows, “Was Titus Timothy?”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 23:81 (2001), pp. 33–58. See also: R. Fellows, “Paul, Timothy, Jerusalem and the Confusion in Galatia”, Biblica 99:4 (2018), pp. 544–566. https://doi.org/10.2143/bib.99.4.3285663 What happened at the conference? Udo Schnelle 13 9 S. Lee, “Why Paul Took Titus Along to Jerusalem”, Information (Japan) 20:12 (2017), pp. 8357–8364. (2000) discusses the Jerusalem conference and the Antioch incident, pointing out that the question “Should a Gentile become a Jew first in order to become a Christian?” had an immense impact on Early Christianity. The Jerusalem conference offered a solution to this problem, but this, in turn, gave rise to new conflicts, as is clear from the Antioch incident. Lucien Legrand 14 10 J.R. Harrison, “Why Did Josephus and Paul Refuse to Circumcise?”, Pacifica 17:2 (2004), pp. 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1030570X0401700203 (2001) discusses Paul’s missionary strategy in terms of ancient geography. According to Legrand, at the Jerusalem meeting, ideas on which parts of the world could be regarded as Judaised or not, played a role. From v. 9 it is clear that Europe (regarded as not Judaised) was given to Paul as missionary field, whereas Peter, James and John received the diaspora in Africa and the East as their missionary fields. Andreas Lindemann 15 11 M.D. Nanos, “Intruding ‘Spies’ and ‘Pseudo-Brethren’: The Jewish Intra-Group Politics of Paul’s Jerusalem Meeting (Gal. 2:1–10)”, in: S.E. Porter (ed.), Paul and His Opponents (Pauline Studies 2, Atlanta GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), pp. 59–97. (2004) offers an overview of Walter Schmithals’s 16 12 Op. cit., p. 68. study on the problems of the Jerusalem Conference and raises some critical questions, for example with regard to Schmithals’s claim that Paul gave up on his own Jewish mission because he accepted that Peter would take on the Jewish mission parallel to Paul’s Gentile mission. Simon J. Gathercole 17 13 U. Schnelle, “Muss ein Heide erst Jude werden, um Christ sein zu können?”, in: M. Karrer, W. Kraus and O. Merk (eds.), Kirche und Volk Gottes: Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff zum 70. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), pp. 93–109. (2005) tries to determine the level of theological agreement between Peter, Paul and James on the one hand and “those from the circumcision” on the other. For Gathercole it is important to realise that the “pillars” did not insist that Titus had to be circumcised and that they supported the mission to the Gentiles. According to this pericope, it also seems as if Titus had shared meals and the eucharist with the believers in Jerusalem. Hans-George Gradl 18 14 L. Legrand, L’apôtre des nations? Paul et la stratégie missionnaire des églises apostoliques (Paris: Cerf, 2001). (2019) discusses the effects of the Jerusalem conference: although it was agreed that the gospel for the circumcised and the gospel for the uncircumcised were equal, subsequent events and factors (such as political situations, the growth of non-Jewish congregations and the impact of certain figures) caused the Pauline gospel to prevail. The request to “remember the poor” This issue was approached from a variety of perspectives: Stephan Joubert 19 15 A. Lindemann, “Der Galaterbrief als historische Quelle”, in: C. Breytenbach (ed.), Paulus, die Evangelien und das Urchristentum: Beiträge von und zu Walter Schmithals: Zu seinem 80. Geburtstag herausgegeben (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 54, 2004), pp. 731–744. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047412472_032 (2001) explains the request from the perspective of the Jewish notion of reciprocity. By recognising the content of Paul’s gospel, the leaders of the church in Jerusalem bestowed a benefit on Paul, and, accordingly, Paul was obligated to respond with a benefit, namely assisting with the problem of the poor in the congregation. Paul thus presents himself as somebody who knows how to show his gratitude. According to Fern K.T. Clarke 20 16 W. Schmithals, “Probleme des ‘Apostelkonzils’ (Gal 2,1–10)”, HTS Teologiese Studies 53:1&2 (1997), pp. 6–35. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047412472_006 (2001), the “pillars” in Jerusalem sanctioned the Gentile mission on the condition that the poor (not only the Jerusalem believers) would be the focus of such a mission. This reflected Jesus’ concern for the poor, a notion that was very important according to the covenant. Alexander J.M. Wedderburn 21 17 S.J. Gathercole, “The Petrine and Pauline sola fide in Galatians 2”, in: M. Bachmann and J. Woyke (eds.), Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive: Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.182, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157299-9 (2002) uses the absence or presence of references to Paul’s collection as an aid to place Paul’s letters chronologically. Wedderburn believes that v. 10 does not refer to the collection that Paul (later) organised and that the letter thus lacks any reference to the collection. Accordingly, Wedderburn proposes that the letter was written shortly after the Antioch incident and before Paul had plans to visit Galatia again. In dialogue with Wedderburn, Alexis V. Bunine 22 18 H.-G. Gradl, “Paulus und Jerusalem: Zur Autorität und Wirkung des ‘Apostelkonzils’ (Gal 2,1–21)”, Cristianesimo Nella Storia 40:1 (2019), pp. 11–33. https://doi.org/10.17395/93288 (2004) claims that Galatia was the only place where Paul organised a collection. The congregations in Macedonia and Achaia contributed spontaneously without Paul having to request them to do so. Andreas Lindemann 23 19 S. Joubert, “Die Leierskap van die Jerusalem-Kerk as Weldoeners tydens die Ontmoeting met Paulus: Galasiërs 2:10 en Antieke Joodse Resiprositeit”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 57:3/4 (2001), pp. 1213–1228. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v57i3/4.1885 (2004) critically discusses the contribution of Walter Schmithals 24 20 F.K.T. Clarke, “‘Remembering the Poor’: Does Galatians 2.10a Allude to the Collection?”, Scripture Bulletin 31:1 (2001), pp. 20–28. (1994) on Paul’s “collections”. Lindemann disagrees with Schmithals’s claim that the collection was also in the background of the activities of Paul’s opponents in some of his congregations. According to José Enrique Aguilar Chiu 25 21 A.J.M. Wedderburn, “Paul’s Collection: Chronology and History”, New Testament Studies 48:1 (2002), pp. 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688502000073 (2015), in the four instances that Paul uses the expression οἱ δοκοῦντες (“those who seemed to be”), he does not refer to the same people every time. In vv. 2, 6b and 9 it refers to James, Peter and John, but in the case of v. 6a it alludes to a different group of people, who may be identified as the persons referred to later in v. 12 (“certain people from James”). Christoph W. Stenschke 26 22 A.V. Bunine, “Paul et les Galates: La véritable occasion de la collecte”, Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique 105:4 (2004), pp. 303–338. (2015–2017) views Paul’s collection from two perspectives: how he went about overcoming the obstacles that he faced from the side of the donors from Gentile Christianity and how he overcame the obstacles from the side of the poor recipients from Jewish Christianity, as well as his own personal obstacles. Stenschke also points out how these insights might be fruitful for Christian leaders in current times, as well how Paul’s leadership may be viewed from the perspective of current leadership theory. Daryn Graham 27 23 A. Lindemann, “Der Galaterbrief als historische Quelle”, in: C. Breytenbach (ed.), Paulus, die Evangelien und das Urchristentum: Beiträge von und zu Walter Schmithals: Zu seinem 80. Geburtstag herausgegeben (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 54, 2004), pp. 736–741. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047412472_032 (2019) focuses on the success of Paul’s collection for the believers in Jerusalem. The Great Famine lasted quite a long time, and Paul’s collection was the greatest project that Christians had embarked upon that stage. It was a huge success, and it does not seem as if the Jerusalem congregation needed further financial help after this.

1.2 Authorship

William O. Walker Jr. published two studies on vv. 7b–8. In the first contribution, Walker Jr. 28 24 W. Schmithals, “Die Kollekten des Paulus für die Christen in Jerusalem”, in: E. Axmacher and K. Schwarzwäller (eds.), Belehrter Glaube: Festschrift für Johannes Wirsching zum 65. Geburtstag (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1994), pp. 231–252. (2003) argues that the peculiarities in vv. 7b–8 are best explained if one accepts that this part of the text is a non-Pauline interpolation. In the other one, Walker Jr. 29 25 J.E. Aguilar Chiu, “οί δοκοῦντες in Gal 2,6”, Estudios Bíblicos 73:2 (2015), pp. 215–240. (2004) draws attention to the fact that v. 8 only mentions Peter’s apostleship, and not Paul’s. This may be explained in two ways: sloppiness on Paul’s part, or that this verse deliberately refrains from calling Paul an apostle. According to Walker, this suggests that v. 8 does not stem from Paul.

1.3 Background

Albert L.A. Hogeterp 30 26 C.W. Stenschke, “Obstacles on All Sides: Paul’s Collection for the Saints in Jerusalem Part 1”, European Journal of Theology 24:1 (2015), pp. 19–32; “Obstacles on All Sides: Paul’s Collection for the Saints in Jerusalem Part 2”, European Journal of Theology 25:1 (2016), pp. 6–17, “The Leadership Challenges of Paul’s Collection for the Saints in Jerusalem: Part I: Overcoming the Obstacles on the Side of the Gentile Christian Donors”, Verbum et Ecclesia 36:1 (2015), https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v36i1.1406 and “The Leadership Challenges of Paul’s Collection for the Saints in Jerusalem: Part II: Overcoming the Obstacles on the Side of the Recipients and of Paul”, Verbum et Ecclesia 38:1 (2017), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v38i1.1693 (2014) regards the Dead Sea Scrolls as “Semitic evidence for a Jewish world of thought in early Roman period Israel”, enabling us to understand the Jewish orientation of the church at Jerusalem better. One of the examples that Hogeterp discusses is the agreement to remember the poor mentioned in v. 10. (The other two examples are the phrase ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν [“to see Cefas”] in 1:18 and the Antioch incident mentioned in the next pericope.) John S. Kloppenberg 31 27 D. Graham, “The Apostle Paul and the Success of the Jerusalem Donation”, Reformed Theological Review 78:2 (2019), pp. 117–140. (2017) compares Paul’s collection to the fiscal practices of Greek cities and private associations. According to Kloppenborg, Paul’s collection is best compared to the ἐπιδοσις (“free giving”), a practice used by associations and cities to raise funds for extraordinary projects.

2. Stylistic and translation issues

2.1 Metaphor

Three metaphors received attention: the running metaphor in v. 2, the slavery metaphor in v. 4, and the pillar metaphor in v. 9: Four studies were devoted to the running metaphor: Uta Poplutz 32 28 W.O. Walker Jr., “Galatians 2:7b–8 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65:4 (2003), pp. 568–587. (2004) discusses the ways in which Paul uses sport metaphors (“Wettkampfmetaforik”) in his letters. In the case of Galatians, Poplutz discusses this verse and 5:7. Poplutz shows how Paul uses these types of metaphors to draw attention to what he wishes to emphasise, the gospel. B.J. Oropeza 33 29 W.O. Walker Jr., “Galatians 2:8 and the Question of Paul’s Apostleship”, Journal of Biblical Literature 123:2 (2004), pp. 323–327. https://doi.org/10.2307/3267948 (2009) maintains that Paul used the running metaphor in this verse, since he regarded himself as a prophetic herald like Habakkuk. This not only referred to his vocation as a missionary, but also to his message, in which Habakkuk’s statement that a righteous person would live by faith played a key role. In an investigation of Paul’s use of athletic metaphors, Victor C. Pfitzner 34 30 A.L.A. Hogeterp, “Paul and the Jerusalem Church: Light from the Scrolls on Graeco-Semitic Language Contacts and Ethics of Gospel Mission”, in: J.-S. Rey (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 102, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2014), pp. 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004230071_014 (2013) also considers examples from Galatians (this verse and 5:7). According to Pfitzner, Paul’s agonistic metaphors were grounded both in his knowledge of athletics in his time and in the philosophical tradition according to which they were used to discuss virtue. Daniel T. Durbin 35 31 J.S. Kloppenborg, “Fiscal Aspects of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem”, Early Christianity 8:2 (2017), pp. 153–198. https://doi.org/10.1628/186870317X14950055760629 Shorter version: J.S. Kloppenborg, “Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem and the Financial Practices in Greek Cities”, in: T.R. Blanton IV and R. Pickett (eds.), Paul and Economics: A Handbook (Minneapolis MN: Fortress Press, 2017), pp. 307–332. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1kgqtgr.16 (2020) explores notions of sports in Plato, Aristotle and Paul. In the case of the Pauline letters, Paul’s use of athletic imagery in this verse and 5:7 is discussed. According to Durbin, Paul uses two athletic proofs to frame his argument in this letter. The use of appeals to athletics made sense in epideictic rhetoric and would have been grasped easily by his audience. Sam Tsang 36 32 U. Poplutz, Athlet des Evangeliums: Eine motivgeschichtliche Studie zur Wettkampfmetaphorik bei Paulus (Herders Biblische Studien, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2004). (2005) discusses Paul’s slavery metaphors in Galatians in the light of insights from the New Rhetoric. Tsang divides these metaphors into three categories and explains their use by means of concepts borrowed from the New Rhetoric. The one in v. 4 is classified as an example of the polemical usage of the metaphor (other example: 4:30) (The other two categories are apologetic usage [1:1, 10, 6:17] and didactic usage [3:23–26; 4:1–10].) According to Nikolaus Walter 37 33 B.J. Oropeza, “Running in Vain, but Not as an Athlete (Galatians 2:2): The Impact of Habakkuk 2:2–4 on Paul’s Apostolic Commission”, in: B.J. Oropeza, C.K. Robertson and D.C. Morhmann (eds.), Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in Honor of James D.G. Dunn for His 70th Birthday (Library of New Testament Studies 414, London/New York NY: T & T Clark, 2009), pp. 139–150. (2000), the metaphor “pillars” should be interpreted against the background of the rabbinic tradition. It thus does not refer primarily to their leadership in the Jerusalem congregation but rather to their outstanding commitment to the law (“als … hervorragende Gesetzesfromme” 38 34 V.C. Pfitzner, “Was St. Paul a Sports Enthusiast? Realism and Rhetoric in Pauline Athletic Metaphors”, in: N.J. Watson and A. Parker (eds.), Sports and Christianity: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (Routledge Research in Sport, Culture and Society, New York NY/London: Routledge, 2013), pp. 89–111. ). Craig S. Keener 39 35 D.T. Durbin, “From Plato to St. Paul: Ancient Sport as Performative Public Discourse”, Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 47:3 (2020), pp. 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2020.1811108 (2010) tries to determine the connotations that Paul’s audience would have associated with the metaphor “pillars” and the “right hand of fellowship”. According to Keener, “pillar” was an image for a strong and prominent figure person and “the right hand of fellowship” referred to making a formal agreement that depended on the integrity and honour of both sides.

2.2 Translation issues

Zeba A. Crook 40 36 S. Tsang, From Slaves to Sons: A New Rhetoric Analysis on Paul’s Slave Metaphors in His Letter to the Galatians (Studies in Biblical Literature 81, New York NY: Peter Lang, 2005), pp. 81–86. (2008) offers a detailed explanation of the way in which the concept χάρις (normally translated as “grace”) was used in the New Testament world and argues that it should not be translated as “grace” in 2:9, 1 Corinthians 3:10 and Romans 12:3 and 15:15. In these instances, a better translation would be “benefaction” or even “favour”.

3. Wirkungsgeschichte

Waldecir Gonzaga 41 37 N. Walter, “Die ‘als Säulen Geltenden’ in Jerusalem – Leiter der Urgemeinde oder exemplarisch Fromme?”, in: M. Karrer, W. Kraus and O. Merk (eds.), Kirche und Volk Gottes: Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff zum 70. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000), pp. 275–306. (2007) assesses the way in which 2:1–21 has been interpreted since Vatican II in order to obtain an in-depth understanding of the text and to work out its ecumenical and pastoral implications. Bruce W. Longenecker 42 38 Op. cit., p. 88. (2009) offers an overview of the way in which “the poor” mentioned in v. 10 was interpreted until around 450 CE. Longenecker shows that, in contrast to current interpretation of the term, with the exception of John Chrysostom, none of the early interpreters restricted the reference of the term to believers in Jerusalem. In an overview of the way in which Paul was interpreted by Johannes Bugenhagen in order to substantiate the importance of care for the poor in the sixteenth century, Kurt K. Hendel 43 39 C.S. Keener, “The Pillars and the Right Hand of Fellowship in Galatians 2.9”, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 7 (2010), pp. 51‑58. (2009) refers to several texts from the Pauline corpus that Bugenhagen regarded as important for this purpose. In the case of Galatians, this verse and 6:10 are highlighted. Arthur A. Just Jr. 44 40 Z.A. Crook, “Grace as Benefaction in Galatians 2:9, 1 Corinthians 3:10, and Romans 12:3; 15:15”, in: D. Neufeld (ed.), The Social Sciences and Biblical Translation (Symposium Series 41, Atlanta GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), pp. 25–38. (2010) discusses the apostolic councils depicted in this pericope and Acts as watershed events from which the church of our time can learn much as to how disagreement should be handled, and consensus may be reached. Boris Repschinski 45 41 W. Gonzaga, “A Verdade do Evangelho” (Gl 2,5.14) e a Autoridade na Igreja: Gl 2,1–21 na Exegese do Vaticano II Até os Nossos Dias: História, Balanço e Novas Perspectivas (Tesi Gregoriana: Teologia 145, Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2007). (2013) compares the ways in which Paul and Ignatius of Loyola reflected on events in their life as an opportunity to recognise the presence of God. Both of them emphasise God’s will without offering systematic autobiographies or memoires. There are also differences. For example, for Paul his own life was a proof of the truth of the gospel and his experiences thus had argumentative value (as can be seen in 1:10–2:14) – something that does not happen in the case of Ignatius. Felix H. Cortez 46 42 B.W. Longenecker, “The Poor of Galatians 2:10: The Interpretative Paradigm of the First Centuries”, in: B.W. Longenecker and K.D. Liebengood (eds.), Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception (New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception, Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 205–221. See also B.W. Longenecker, Remember the Poor: Paul, Poverty, and the Greco-Roman World (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2010), pp. 135–206. (2015) addresses the mission-dilemma in Seventh-day Adventism by discussing Paul’s views on the poor, as may be seen in texts such as v. 10 and 6:10. According to Cortez, Paul regarded caring for the poor as an essential part of the gospel with no contradiction between mission and social relief. Marcus A. Mininger 47 43 K.K. Hendel, “Paul and the Care of the Poor During the Sixteenth Century: A Case Study”, in: R.W. Holder (ed.), A Companion to Paul in the Reformation (Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 15, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2009), pp. 541–571. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004174924.i-660.103 (2016) appropriates the message of v. 2, 2:11–14 and Philippians 1:12–18 for the current context. These sections show that one of the best ways to test one’s God-centredness in the ministry is the way one handles conflict with other people, in particular with peers. According to Keith Maynor 48 44 A.A. Just Jr., “The Apostolic Councils of Galatians and Acts: How First-Century Christians Walked Together”, Concordia Theological Quarterly 74:3/4 (2010), pp. 261–288. (2018), the central issue in 1:16–2:21 is not so much Paul’s polemics but his testimony about the way in which he was transformed at the Damascus event. Maynor develops the implications of this insight for current transformational leadership theory. Maksimilijan Matjaž 49 45 B. Repschinski, “Lebensreflexion als Ort der Gotteserfahrung: Ignatius von Loyola und Paulus von Tarsus im Vergleich”, Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 135:2/3 (2013), pp. 230–251. (2019) discusses Paul’s understanding of κοινωνία (“fellowship”) in v. 9 that played a key role in the agreement reached in Jerusalem. Matjaž emphasises that κοινωνία is based on recognising the truth of the gospel and that it has ecumenical and ethical implications.

4. Interpretative approaches

4.1 Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures:

Moisés Silva 50 46 F.H. Cortez, “The Mission-Charity Dilemma: Fresh Perspectives from Paul’s Practice”, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 26:1 (2015), pp. 160–173. (2007) discusses two allusions and all the quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in Galatians. Silva’s study is based on the premise that Paul not only depended on the Hebrew Scriptures when he was under pressure from Jewish opponents, but also that its conceptual world was fundamental to his theology. In this case, Silva discusses the expression “God does not accept the face of a man” in v. 6 as an echo, a translation of an expression found in Leviticus 19:15. Roy E. Ciampa 51 47 M.A. Mininger, “A God-Centered Ministry and Responses to Conflict between Peers: Perspectives from the Apostle Paul”, Mid-America Journal of Theology 27 (2016), pp. 123–136. (2007) offers a thorough discussion of Paul’s use of Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romans. In the case of Galatians, Ciampa also discusses the echo in v. 6 and points out that Deuteronomy 10:17 was the primary source for referring to the impartiality of God.

4.2 Sociological/social-scientific approaches

Atsuhiro Asano 52 48 K. Maynor, “Social and Cultural Textures in Galatians 1”, Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership 8:1 (2018), pp. 226–235. (2014) identifies the following three conflicting views on the ethnic identity of the Christian community reflected in 2:1–14: Gentile believers are a secondary group, attached to the Jewish community (the view of the Jerusalem leaders), Gentile believers have to become Jewish in the full sense of the word (the view of the “false brothers”), and Gentile believers are part of a new authentic community (Paul’s view).

4.3 Rhetorical approaches

According to Jerome Murphy-O’Connor 53 49 M. Matjaž, “Občestvo kljub Različnosti: Pavlovo Razumevanje Koinonie v Pismu Galačanom (Gal 2,9)”, Edinost in Dialog 74:1 (2019), pp. 175–193. https://doi.org/10.34291/edinost/74/matjaz (2000), Paul’s rhetorical aim with v. 2 was to deceive his opponents and make them feel complacent, thus heightening the impact of the next verse in which he announced that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. Konstantin Nikolakopoulos 54 50 M. Silva, “Galatians”, in: G. Beale and D. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2007), pp. 785–810. (2001) considers rhetorical irony in Galatians by examining three instances in the letter, in v. 6 (as well as in 1:6 and 5:12) in which irony plays an important role. Nikolakopoulos also points out the effectiveness of irony for achieving Paul’s didactic-pedagogic purpose in the letter. Jean-Noël Aletti 55 51 R.E. Ciampa, “Deuteronomy in Romans and Galatians”, in: M.J.J. Menken and S. Moyise (eds.), Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel (Library of New Testament Studies 358, London: T & T Clark, 2007), pp. 99–117. (2005) regards 1:11–2:21 as a unified argument: 1:11–12 is the propositio, 2:14b–21 is a brief speech bringing the argument to a climax and 2:16 reformulates Paul’s gospel while also serving as the thesis of the next two chapters. D. Francois Tolmie 56 52 A. Asano, “Galatians 2.1–14 as Depiction of the Church’s Early Struggle for Community-Identity Construction”, in: J.B. Tucker and C.A. Baker (eds.), T & T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), pp. 311–332. (2005) offers a text-based rhetorical analysis of Galatians. Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope is summarised as recounting his second visit to Jerusalem in order to prove the acknowledgement of the content and origin of his gospel by the authorities. Three characteristics of his rhetorical strategy are highlighted: a shift towards the content of the gospel, a continued emphasis on the divine origin of his gospel/apostleship, and an ambivalence towards Jerusalem. Debbie Hunn 57 53 J. Murphy-O’Connor, “To Run in Vain (Gal 2:2)”, Revue Biblique 107:3 (2000), pp. 383–389. (2010) notes that scholars understand Paul’s rhetorical strategy in 1:13–2:21 in different ways: defence of his apostleship, denial of accusations and depiction of himself as a paradigm. Hunn argues that Paul distinguishes between two options in 1:10 – pleasing people or pleasing God – and then defends his gospel by referring to his experience at the Damascus event and what motivated him in life. Bartolomeo Puca 58 54 K. Nikolakopoulos, “Aspekte der ‘paulinischen Ironie’ am Beispiel des Galaterbriefes”, Biblische Zeitschrift 45:2 (2001), pp. 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1163/25890468-04502003 (2011) draws attention to Paul’s paradoxical self-praise in in 1:11–2:21. He shifts the attention from his own personal experience to God, thereby emphasising the divine origin of his gospel and offering an example of faithfulness to it. According to Ian J. Elmer 59 55 J.-N. Aletti, “Galates 1–2: Quelle fonction et quelle démonstration?”, Biblica 86:3 (2005), pp. 305–323. English version: J.-N. Aletti, New (2013), Paul’s opponents used their own version of his conversion and his apostleship against him, and Paul responded by using the narratio of the letter as a rhetorical strategy to counter such attempts in 1:13–2:14. Antonio Pitta 60

Rhetoric, Soteriology, Christology and Ecclesiology: Translated from the French by Peggy Manning Meyer (Subsidia Biblica 43, Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2012), pp. 215–236. Approaches for Interpreting the Letters of Saint Paul: Collected Essays:

(2015) draws attention to mimesis in Galatians. Although it does not occur explicitly, it is found implicitly in 1:13–2:21, 3:5–6 and 4:28–31. This shows that mimesis is very important to Paul in situations where religious identity was in danger. Peter Malik 61 56 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 (2017) considers the term οἱ δοκοῦντες (“those who seemed to be”; used in vv. 2, 6 and 9) from the perspective of lexical semantics and the way in which it used in ancient Greek literature. Malik deduces that Paul uses the term in Galatians as a rhetorical device, intended to distance himself from the Jerusalem leaders, thus turning the argument of his opponents against them.

4.4 Narrative approaches

Edward Adams 62 57 D. Hunn, “Pleasing God or Pleasing People? Defending the Gospel in Galatians 1–2”, Biblica 91:1 (2010), pp. 24–49. (2000) discusses four facets of point of view in 1:13–2:14 (time, space, psychology and ideology) and shows how they serve Paul’s rhetorical goal of establishing a self-defence against his opponents. Timothy Wiarda 63 58 B. Puca, Una Periautologia Paradossale: Analisi Retorico-Letteraria di Gal 1,13–2,21 (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 186, Roma: Pontificio Università Gregoriana, 2011). (2004) analyses plot and character in Galatians 1:13–2:21. According to Wiarda, such an analysis does not only confirm the traditional interpretation of the narrative (that Paul uses it to establish his credentials) but also shows that it has a definitive paradigmatic goal. One of the passages that Greger Andersson 64 59 I.J. Elmer, “Setting the Record Straight at Galatia: Paul’s narratio (Gal 1:13–2:14) as Response to the Galatian Conflict”, in: W. Mayer and B. Neil (eds.), Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 121, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), pp. 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110291940.21 (2019) investigates in a study of “narrating selves” in the Bible is 1:11–2:14. According to Andersson, in this instance, it is used by Paul both to defend his authority and to offer himself as a role model.

4.5 Ideology-critical approaches

C. Melissa Snarr 65 60 A. Pitta, “I Gradi della Mimesi nella Lettera ai Galati”, Liber Annuus 65 (2015), pp. 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.LA.4.000113 (2017) agrees with empire-critical readings of v. 10 (such as those offered by Brigitte Kahl) and works out the contemporary implications of such insights. Believers should acknowledge religious differences in their communities and try to create fellowship by remembering the poor.

5. Theological issues

In a discussion of the concept “truth of the gospel” in 2:5 and 14, Moisés Silva 66 61 P. Malik, “Some Notes on the Semantics of οἱ δοκοῦντες in Galatians 2”, The Expository Times 128:4 (2017), pp. 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014524616650572 (2000) highlights the importance of obedience. It is vital to understand the teaching about Gentile freedom, but this also implies the responsibility to act accordingly. Timothy Wiarda 67 62 E. Adams, “Ideology and Point of View in Galatians 1–2: A Critical Linguistic Analysis”, in: S.E. Porter (ed.), Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 193, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 205–254. (2003) identifies and critically assesses five different ways in which people use the Jerusalem Council as a model for the contemporary church. Wiarda concludes the investigation by emphasising the importance of sticking to the ideal of like-mindedness in the church. Jens Schröter 68 63 T. Wiarda, “Plot and Character in Galatians 1–2”, Tyndale Bulletin 55:2 (2004), pp. 231–252. https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.29175 (2004) focuses on the Christological controversy in Galatians. According to Paul, there is only one gospel, but it is expressed in two forms (“Gestalten”; 1:6–7, 2:7) and, in this letter, Paul aims to show the original unity of the two forms. Wayne Coppins 69 64 G. Andersson, “Narrating Selves and the Literary in the Bible”, Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas 17:1 (2019), pp. 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.2019.0005 (2009) offers an interpretation of freedom as conceptualised in Paul’s letters. In the case of Galatians, rather than describing the content of this freedom as freedom from the law, Coppins argues that a more comprehensive type of freedom is in view in texts such as 2:4, 5:1, 13, namely a freedom from the elements of the world. In Bruce W. Longenecker’s 70 65 C.M. Snarr, “Remembering the Poor: Interfaith Collaboration, Neoliberalism, and an Anti-Imperial Gospel”, Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 37:1 (2017), pp. 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1353/sce.2017.0005 (2009) argument that care for the poor was an integral part of the gospel for Paul, v. 10 plays an important role. According to Longenecker, this verse refers not only to poor believers in Jerusalem but also to the poor everywhere. Furthermore, for Paul, caring about the poor had everything to do with the truth of the gospel and thus it was a fundamental aspect of his message, also in Galatians. D. Francois Tolmie 71 66 M. Silva, “The Truth of the Gospel: Paul’s Mission According to Galatians: In Honor of Peter T. O’Brien”, in: P. Bolt and M. Thompson (eds.), The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission (Downers Grove IL: Apollos, 2000), pp. 51–61. (2013) identifies three core elements of the spiritual activity of discernment (reflection, choice and the relationship to God) and discusses several references to discernment in the letter: 2:1–10, 2:11–21, 3:1–5 and 5:13–6:10. According to Jinsu Im 72 67 T. Wiarda, “The Jerusalem Council and the Theological Task”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46:2 (2003), pp. 233–248. (2014), Jesus and the Early Church transformed the vertical form of euergetism that was characteristic of their time to horizontal solidarity. One of the examples that Im discusses in this regard is v. 10. Im believes that the support of poor believers in Jerusalem illustrates such a horizontal solidarity. In a study of the relationship between the truth of the gospel and the unity of the church in the Pauline letters (amongst others, 2:5 and 14) and the Johannine writings, Hans-Christian Kammler 73 68 J. Schröter, “Die Einheit des Evangeliums: Erwägungen zur christologischen Kontroverse des Galaterbriefes und ihrem theologie-geschichtlichen Hintergrund”, in: J. Mrázek and J. Roskovec (eds.), Testimony & Interpretation: Early Christology in Its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu: Studies in Honor of Petr Pokorný (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 272, London/New York NY: T & T Clark, 2004), pp. 49–67. Also available in: J. Schröter, Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament: Studien zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte und zur Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.204, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp. 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151493-7 (2014) shows that “truth” is understood in a Christological sense and that it is generally accepted that the truth of the gospel constitutes unity in the church. Kammler also works out the implications of this insight for current oecumenical dialogues. Taking J. Louis Martyn’s 74 69 W. Coppins, The Interpretation of Freedom in the Letters of Paul: With Special Reference to the “German” Tradition (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.261, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151604-7 question “What time is it?” as cue, Chad Chambers 75 70 B.W. Longenecker, “The Poor of Galatians 2:10: The Interpretative Paradigm of the First Centuries”, in: B.W. Longenecker and K.D. Liebengood (eds.), Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception (New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception, Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 205–221. See also earlier: B.W. Longenecker, “Good News to the Poor: Jesus, Paul, and Jerusalem”, in: T.D. Still (ed.), Jesus and Paul Reconnected: Fresh Pathways into an Old Debate (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 37–65. (2015) investigates the presentation of time in 1:11–2:21. Chambers is of the opinion that Paul structures time metaphorically and that he thinks of time as multidirectional as well as multidimensional: “[T]ime is multidimensional, consisting of multiple pasts, presents, and futures with each linked to the revelatory nature of Christ’s coming into the world. God’s revelation of Christ is an event that happens within history but changes time.” 76 71 D.F. Tolmie, “Discernment in the Letter to the Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 17 (2013), pp. 156–171. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v32i2S.12 Jan Lambrecht 77 72 J. Im, “Euergetism in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in Early Christianity”, Canon & Culture 8:2 (2014), pp. 269–303. https://doi.org/10.31280/CC.2014.10.8.2.269 (2017) disagrees with Chambers and prefers to describe Paul’s view of time not by means of opposing time metaphors (as Chambers does) but by focusing on the fact that God caused discontinuity in the continuity by a breakthrough in history. Karl Olav Sandnes 78 73 H.-C. Kammler, “Die Wahrheit des Evangeliums und die Einheit der Kirche: Exegetische Überlegungen zu ihrem sachlichen Verhältnis”, Kerygma und Dogma 60:2 (2014), pp. 126–152. https://doi.org/10.13109/kedo.2014.60.2.126 (2017) thinks that Paul’s self-concept was rooted in the prophetic tradition in Israel, in particular Isaiah 40–66. In the case of Galatians, Sandnes draws attention to a cluster of motifs found in 1:15–16a and 2:2. Kar Yong Lim 79 74 J.L. Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 33A, New York NY/London/Toronto/Sydney/Auckland: Doubleday, 1997), p. 23. (2017) identifies the following economic principles in Pauline letters with the Jerusalem collection as a test case: grace and generosity, equality and sharing resources as a spiritual family. Maksimilijan Matjaž 80 75 C. Chambers, “‘Before I Was Born’: Time in Paul’s Autobiographical Reflections in Galatians 1 and 2”, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 5:2 (2015), pp. 257–269. https://doi.org/10.2307/jstudpaullett.5.2.0257 (2019) discusses Paul’s understanding of κοινωνία (“fellowship”) in v. 9, that played a key role in the agreement reached in Jerusalem. Matjaž emphasises that κοινωνία is based on recognising the truth of the gospel and that it has ecumenical and ethical implications. Michael L. Sweeney 81 76 Op. cit., p. 268. (2019) appropriates the Pauline collection for our times by viewing it as an expression of church solidarity between different areas in Early Christianity. According to Sweeney, the underlying values and motives can guide the current church in its mission, in particular by creating cross-cultural partnerships between churches. Chapter 5: Galatians 2:11–21 This pericope attracted much attention from scholars, with a wide array of issues that were considered.

1. Introductory issues

1.1 The significance of the Antioch incident

Udo Schnelle 1 77 J. Lambrecht, In Search of Meaning: Collected Notes on the New Testament (2014–2017) (Balti: Scholars’ Press, 2017), pp. 434–438. (2000) discusses the Jerusalem conference and the Antioch incident, pointing out that the question “Should a Gentile become a Jew first in order to become a Christian?” had an immense impact on Early Christianity. The Jerusalem conference offered a solution to this problem, but this, in turn, gave rise to new conflicts, as is clear from the Antioch incident. In Galatians, Paul narrates the Antioch incident from the perspective of the crisis in Galatia, and his view on justification reflected in this letter is thus a new solution to a new challenge. Michael F. Bird 2 78 K.O. Sandnes, “Paul, an Isaianic Prophet?”, in: T. Wasserman, G. Andersson and D. Willgren (eds.), Studies in Isaiah: History, Theology and Reception (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 654, London/New York NY: Bloomsbury Publishing/T & T Clark, 2017), pp. 139–156. https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567667199_0014 (2012) agrees with Martin Hengel that the Antioch incident reveals how the ways of the church at Antioch and at Jerusalem parted. Bird also regards the Antioch incident as the beginnings of Paulinism, in the sense that Paul’s views in this regard were expressed for the first time publicly at Antioch. Douglas A. Campbell 3 79 K.Y. Lim, “Paul the Economist? Economic Principles in Pauline Literature with the Jerusalem Collection as a Test Case”, Evangelical Review of Theology 41:1 (2017), pp. 19–31. (2014) is of the opinion that what we have in Paul’s letters, in particular in Galatians, indicates that after the Damascus event, Paul’s ethics were still comprehensively based on the Jewish law. The radical shift to a more flexible attitude only came about in Antioch in Syria, around 36 CE.

1.2 The versions in this pericope and in Acts

Martino Conti 4 80 M. Matjaž, “Občestvo kljub Različnosti: Pavlovo Razumevanje Koinonie v Pismu Galačanom (Gal 2,9)”, Edinost in Dialog 74:1 (2019), pp. 175–193. https://doi.org/10.34291/edinost/74/matjaz (2002) investigates Acts 15 and Galatians 2:1–21 and concludes that the tensions regarding circumcision and the law were originally separate issues but that they were integrated by Luke and linked to one event, i.e., the meeting in Jerusalem. Alexander J.M. Wedderburn 5 81 M.L. Sweeney, “The Pauline Collection, Church Partnerships, and the Mission of the Church in the 21st Century”, Missiology 48:2 (2019), pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091829619887387 (2002) believes that the disagreements between Paul and Barnabas reflected in vv. 11–14 and Acts 15:36–41 refer to two separate events and works out the implications of such a choice. According to Wedderburn, of these two the one narrated in Acts occurred first. Robert M. Price 6 1 U. Schnelle, “Muss ein Heide erst Jude werden, um Christ sein zu können?”, in: M. Karrer, W. Kraus and O. Merk (eds.), Kirche und Volk Gottes: Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff zum 70. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), pp. 93–109. (2004) points out that scholars often find a negative link between Galatians and the Gospel according to Matthew, but notes that there is a connection between the two that is often overlooked, namely that both of them arose from the conflict described between Paul (on the one side) and Peter, Barnabas and the people from James (on the other side). Paul wrote Galatians as a result of events following the Antioch incident, and the Gospel of Matthew reflects scars from the same incident. Denis Fricker 7 2 M.F. Bird, “The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2.11–14): The Beginnings of Paulinism”, in: M.F. Bird and J. Maston (eds.), Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology: Essays from the Tyndale Fellowship in Honor of Martin Hengel (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.320, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), pp. 329–361. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151877-5 See also later: M.F. Bird, An Anomalous Jew: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2016), pp. 170–204. (2006) believes that although this pericope and Acts 15 tell about a serious crisis in Antioch and its settlement later in Jerusalem, both texts are biased, since they do not reflect the views of the believers in favour of circumcision. Thus, believers cannot use these texts nowadays to settle conflicts in the church. The primary purpose of the text is rather to get one to understand that crises in the church are normal and part of its development.

1.3 Antioch

According to Jacinto Núñez Regodón 8 3 D.A. Campbell, “Beyond the Torah at Antioch: The Probable Locus for Paul’s Radical Transition”, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 4:2 (2014), pp. 187–214. (2002), Paul’s insight that there was an antithesis between the law and Christ arose at his conversion, the arguments supporting a Gentile mission and the abandonment of the law originated in the Greek-speaking congregations, in particular, in Antioch, and the formulation of the antithesis in terms of the concept “justification” was caused by Paul’s conflict with the Judaisers. Michelle Slee 9 4 M. Conti, “Il Concilio Apostolico e la Lettera ai Galati (At 15,1–29; Gal 2,1–21)”, Antonianum 77:2 (2002), pp. 235–256. (2003) offers a detailed overview of events at the church at Antioch in the first century CE, amongst others the Antioch incident. Slee believes that the bitter debates in Antioch were caused by a difference of opinion with regard to table-fellowship between Gentiles and Jews, particularly at the eucharist, since not everybody agreed with the decisions taken at the Jerusalem conference. John Deehan 10 5 A.J.M. Wedderburn, “Paul and Barnabas: The Anatomy and Chronology of a Parting of the Ways”, in: I. Dunderberg, C. Tuckett and K. Syreeni (eds.), Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity: Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 103, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2002), pp. 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004268210_012 (2009) focuses on the tensions in Paul’s relationship with the church at Antioch and suggests that the Antioch incident placed such a burden on him that it might be the “thorn in the flesh” that he refers to in 2 Corinthians 12:7. James W. Thompson 11 6 R.M. Price, “Antioch’s Aftershocks: Rereading Galatians and Matthew after Saldarini”, in: A.J. Avery-Peck, D. Harrington and J. Neusner (eds.), When Judaism and Christianity Began: Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Saldarini: Volume One: Christianity in the Beginning (Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 85, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2004), pp. 231‑250. (2019) is critical of the broad consensus in Biblical scholarship that Antioch was the setting of two of the most important events in Early Christianity, the preaching of the law-free gospel to Gentiles and the parting of the ways between Paul and the Palestinian church. According to Thompson, there is very little evidence to support either of these views.

1.4 Background

Stephen Anthony Cummins 12 7 D. Fricker, “La crise d’Antioche et la gestion des conflits en église: Exégèse et théologie pastorale”, Revue des Sciences Religieuses 80:3 (2006), pp. 349–370. https://doi.org/10.4000/rsr.1938 (2001) proposes that the central point of disagreement at Antioch (the question as to what distinguishes those who belong to the people of God) should be interpreted against the background of a Maccabean martyr model in Judaism. This model was Christologically reconfigured and also applied by Paul to his own ministry. Kang-Yup Na 13 8 J. Núñez Regodón, El Evangelio en Antioquía: Gál 2,15–21 entre el Incidente Antioqueno y la Crisis Gálata (Plenitudo Temporis 7, Salamanca: Publicaciones Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, 2002). (2005) believes that the Antioch incident is best understood as a first-century intra-Jewish debate about what Jewishness entails. Accordingly, the story of the conversion of Izates found in Josephus’s Antiquities can help us to understand this incident better. From a rabbinic perspective, Jacob Neusner 14 9 M. Slee, The Church in Antioch in the First Century CE: Communion and Conflict (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplements 244, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), pp. 36–52. (2005) explains the positions of James, Peter and Paul (as reflected in this pericope) in terms of three perspectives of the kairos: the end-time has not yet come (James), the end-time has commenced but has not yet come to fulfilment (Peter) and the end-time has come (Paul). According to Robert Eisenman 15 10 J. Deehan, “Antioch – Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh?”, Pastoral Review 5:2 (2009), pp. 29–34. (2008), Hippolytus’s description of the four groups amongst the Essenes helps one to understand that the sicarii were not assassins but circumcisers (i.e., using the knives of circumcision). By the time Paul wrote Galatians, there was no longer any difference between “the people from James” and the sicarii. Albert L.A. Hogeterp 16 11 J.W. Thompson, “Antioch, the Hellenists, and the Origins of Pauline Theology”, Restoration Quarterly 61:3 (2019), pp. 129–142. (2014) views the Dead Sea Scrolls as “Semitic evidence for a Jewish world of thought in early Roman period Israel” 17 12 S.A. Cummins, Paul and the Crucified Christ in Antioch: Maccabean Martyrdom and Galatians 1 and 2 (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 114, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). , enabling us to understand the Jewish orientation of the church at Jerusalem better. Hogeterp discusses three examples of language contact between them and Paul: the Antioch incident reflected in this pericope, as well as the phrase ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν (“to see Cefas”, 1:18) and the agreement to remember the poor (2:10). Jean-Sébastian Rey 18 13 K.-Y. Na, “The Conversion of Izates and Galatians 2:11–14: The Significance of a Jewish Dispute for the Christian Church”, Horizons in Biblical Theology 27:2 (2005), pp. 56–78. (2014) discusses some examples of “interdiscursivity” between the Dead Sea Scrolls and Galatians and identifies three issues in Galatians that can be understood better from such a perspective: (1) the ironic use of opposing discourse (ὀρθοποδέω [“walk straight] in v. 14); (2) the use of doxic discourse (the quotation of Psalm 143:2 in v. 16); and (3) the way in which a counter-discourse is built around the term “works of the law”. Mark D. Nanos 19 14 J. Neusner, “What, Exactly, Is Israel’s Gentile Problem? Rabbinic Perspectives on Galatians 2”, in: B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity (Novum Testamentum Supplements 115, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2005), pp. 275–306. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047414742_009 (2017) reads the Antioch incident against the behavioural norms of Graeco-Roman banquets. In terms of such a background, vv. 11–21 may be regarded as a subversive narrative, since placement was assigned in an indiscriminate way. George Philip 20 15 R. Eisenman, “‘Sicarii Essenes,’ ‘The Party of the Circumcision,’ and Qumran”, in: F. García Martínez (ed.), Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 70, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2008), pp. 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004164147.i-283.65 (2017) explains Paul’s approach to the common meal against the background of practices in Graeco-Roman and Jewish culture. Whereas such meals were generally used to create boundaries, one can see from Galatians and Corinthians that Paul viewed this practice as a way to resist ethnic boundaries and factionalism. Joel Willitts 21 16 A.L.A. Hogeterp, “Paul and the Jerusalem Church: Light from the Scrolls on Graeco-Semitic Language Contacts and Ethics of Gospel Mission”, in: J.-S. Rey (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 102, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2014), pp. 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004230071_014 (2017) maintains that the dispute at Antioch was of a halakhic nature and did not so much focus on soteriology. Paul and Peter accepted the same gospel but drew different halakhic conclusions from it. According to Christina Eschner 22 17 Op. cit., p. 275. (2019), it is not correct to explain Paul’s view of Christ’s death in v. 20 against the background of the notion of atonement. It should rather be interpreted in terms of the Greek notion of an apotropaic death, the giving of oneself for the fatherland or for another person. Laura Salah Nasrallah 23 18 J.-S. Rey, “Les manuscrits de la Mer Morte et l’Épître aux Galates: Quelques cas d’interdiscursivité”, in: J.-S. Rey (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 102, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2014), pp. 17–49. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004230071_004 (2019) draws attention to an issue that is often overlooked when missionary (and other) journeys in the New Testament times are considered, namely that they could have been disruptive to the people who had to receive the visitors. Nasrallah discusses a transport requisition inscription from Sagallasos (dated 14‑19 CE) that helps one to understand such matters better, for example that Peter’s visit to Antioch, as well as that of “the ones from James” (vv. 12‑13) and even Paul’s own visits to the Galatians (4:13–14) imposed on and disturbed the locals.

1.5 Historical issues underlying the pericope

Historicity Frank McGuire 24 19 M.D. Nanos, “Reading the Antioch Incident (Gal 2:11–21) as a Subversive Banquet Narrative”, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 7:1/2 (2017), pp. 26–52. https://doi.org/10.5325/jstudpaullett.7.1-2.0026 (2002) believes that Peter and Paul never met and that the quarrel narrated in this pericope was invented by a forerunner of Marcion in order to re-enact the events narrated in Acts 15:30–35. Chronology Richard Bauckham 25 20 G. Philip, Paul and Common Meal: Re-Socialization of the Christian Community (Biblical Hermeneutics Rediscovered 7, New Delhi: Christian World Imprints, 2017). (2005) is of the opinion that Paul wrote Galatians before the Jerusalem conference (narrated in Acts 15). At the stage that Paul wrote Galatians, the agreement reached between him and the three pillars of the Jerusalem church was still important, but it became an insignificant event because of the decisions taken later at the Jerusalem conference. Cornelis Bennema 26 21 J. Willitts, “One Torah for Another: The Halakhic conversion of Jewish Believers: Paul’s Response to Peter’s Halakhic Equivocation in Galatians 2:11–21”, in: T.A. Wilson and P.R. House (eds.), The Crucified Apostle: Essays on Peter and Paul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.450, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), pp. 21–45. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-155610-4 (2013) concurs with Bauckham that the Antioch crisis depicted in Galatians occurred before the Jerusalem conference (narrated in Acts 15). This crisis was the reason for the meeting in Jerusalem, and at that meeting the church at Jerusalem provided authoritative guidance to the entire Christian movement. Matthias Konradt 27 22 C. Eschner, “‘Der mich geliebt und sich selbst “für” mich hingegeben hat’ (Gal 2,20): Die griechische Konzeption des Unheil abwendenden Sterbens als zentrale Heilskategorie des Galaterbriefes”, in: D.S. du Toit, C. Gerber and C. Zimmermann (eds.), Sōtēria: Salvation in Early Christianity and Antiquity: Festschrift in Honour of Cilliers Breytenbach on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Novum Testamentum Supplements 175, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2019), pp. 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004396883_017 (2011) agrees with scholars who date the Antioch incident in 52 CE and link it to the visit referred to in Acts 18:22. Konradt also offers additional evidence for linking the Antioch incident to this verse. The identity of “the ones from James” and “the ones of the circumcision” D.A. Carson 28 23 L.S. Nasrallah, Archaeology and the Letters of Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199699674. 001.0001 (2014) uses the expressions “the ones from James” and “the ones of the circumcision” in this pericope as a test case for illustrating the difficulty involved in mirror-reading the letter. Carson evaluates various interpretations of these expressions, pointing out that one cannot avoid mirror-reading and that the best options are those based on the greatest number of texts and fitting those texts as closely as possible. According to José Enrique Aguilar Chiu 29 24 F. McGuire, “The Posthumous Clash between Peter and Paul”, Journal of Higher Criticism 9:2 (2002), pp. 161–174. (2015), in the four instances that Paul uses the expression οἱ δοκοῦντες (“those who seemed to be”) it does not refer to the same people every time. In vv. 2, 6b and 9 it refers to James, Peter and John, but in the case of v. 6a, it alludes to a different group of people, who may be identified as the persons referred to later in v. 12 (“the ones from James”). According to Mark I. Seifrid 30 25 R. Bauckham, “James, Peter, and the Gentiles”, in: B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity (Novum Testamentum Supplements 115, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2005), pp. 91–142. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047414742_005 (2019), “the ones from James” were James’s representatives, but they did not belong to a conservative Jewish party. When they arrived in Antioch, Peter seemingly was afraid of being reproached or shamed and withdrew from table-fellowship with Gentile believers. Barnabas Michael Cosby 31 26 C. Bennema, “The Ethnic Conflict in Early Christianity: An Appraisal of Bauckham’s Proposal on the Antioch Crisis and the Jerusalem Council”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56:4 (2013), pp. 753–763. (2015) is of the opinion that one cannot take Paul’s description of Barnabas’s behaviour in v. 13 at face value. Barnabas probably had good reasons for disagreeing with Paul’s harsh approach. Because he was a bridge-builder, he was probably looking for a compromise. Peter L. Ann Jervis 32 27 M. Konradt, “Zur Datierung des sogenannten antiochenischen Zwischenfalls”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 102:1 (2011), pp. 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1515/ZNTW.2011.002 (2000) discusses the Antioch incident from Peter’s perspective. He found himself caught in the middle between two understandings of Jesus’ interpretation of the law: a prophetic understanding (an emphasis on the way in which Jesus challenged Pharisaic views of righteousness) and a Pharisaic understanding of it (an emphasis on the law as the highest standard for measuring righteousness). Jack J. Gibson 33 28 D.A. Carson, “Mirror-Reading with Paul and against Paul: Galatians 2:11–14 as a Test Case”, in: M.S. Harmon and J.E. Smith (eds.), Studies in the Pauline Epistles: Essays in Honor of Douglas J. Moo (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 2014), pp. 99–112. (2013) concurs with scholars who are of the opinion that Peter stopped participating in table fellowship with Gentile Christians at Antioch because he was concerned about the intensification of violent nationalism in Judea and the possible negative impact the fact that he was eating with Gentiles could have on the church in Jerusalem. Gibson also argues that there was a movement in Judea that was actively advocating violence against the Romans throughout the first century CE and that this movement became more successful after the death of Agrippa. Franciszek Mickiewicz 34 29 J.E. Aguilar Chiu, “οί δοκοῦντες in Gal 2,6”, Estudios Bíblicos 73:2 (2015), pp. 215–240. (2019) discusses the era in Peter’s life from the point in time that he left Jerusalem in 42 CE until he arrived in Rome. Based on vv. 11–14 and other insights from the New Testament, Mickiewicz argues that Peter became an itinerant apostle, spent much time on missionary work and thus gained great authority in Christian circles. The basic issues According to Magnus Zetterholm 35 30 M.A. Seifrid, “Revisiting Antioch: Paul, Cephas, and ‘the Ones from James’”, Theologische Literaturzeitung 144:12 (2019), pp. 1225–1235. (2005), scholars wrongly assume that the conflict at Antioch was caused by the fact that Jewish believers regarded Gentiles as ritually impure. Things are more complex than this. In general, Jews did not consider Gentiles to be ritually impure, but rather morally impure (because they were involved in Graeco-Roman religious practices). It thus seems as if some of the believers in Antioch began to view Gentile believers as morally pure and as covenant partners although they were still involved in other cultic activities (because of socio-political reasons). Rainer Reuter 36 31 M. Cosby, “When Apostolic Egos Collide: Paul, Peter and Barnabas in Galatians 2”, Conversations with the Biblical World 35 (2015), pp. 1–21. (2009) believes that the expression “those of the circumcision” in v. 12 means “Jews”, refers to the people from James and depicts them as people who zealously observed the law. According to Markus Öhler 37 32 L.A. Jervis, “Peter in the Middle: Galatians 2:11–21”, in: S.G. Wilson and M. Desjardins (eds.), Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson (Études sur le Christianisme et le Judaïsme 9, Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000), pp. 45–62. (2012), the decisive issue at the Antioch incident was ethnicity. Before “the ones from James” turned up, ethnicity did not play any role in the congregation as long as cultic and social rules were adhered to. However, the ecclesiology of the church in Jerusalem was different. In Jerusalem, the Christian congregations were regarded as the renewed Israel, but such a view was based on ethnicity and thus it was believed that certain identity markers had to characterise the congregation in Antioch, too. For William Sanger Campbell 38 33 J.J. Gibson, Peter between Jerusalem and Antioch: Peter, James and the Gentiles (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.345, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-152355-7 (2013) it is important that the interpretation of vv. 15–21 be based on the previous part (vv. 11–14). If such an approach is followed, it becomes clear that the issue was not only the law but also unity amongst believers in spite of ethnicity. V. George Shillington 39 34 F. Mickiewicz, “Działalność Misjonarska św. Piotra Poza Palestyną w Świetle Literatury Nowotestamentowej”, Collectanea Theologica 89:3 (2019), pp. 85–109. https://doi.org/10.21697/ct.2019.89.3.03 (2015) links the tension between James and Paul in the early church to “a politics of identity” revolving around matters of religion, culture and ethnicity. Shillington believes that the Antioch incident was caused by the fact that James went back on the agreement reached at the Jerusalem conference and this damaged the relationship between Paul and Peter permanently. Mark D. Nanos 40 35 M. Zetterholm, “Purity and Anger: Gentiles and Idolatry in Antioch”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 1 (2005), pp. 1–24. See also M. Zetterholm, “The Antioch Incident Revisited”, Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 6:2 (2016), pp. 249–259, where Zetterholm again emphasises that non-Jews were regarded as morally impure. (2016) challenges the commonly-held assumption that Paul’s accusation that Peter and other Jews “lived like Gentiles” (v. 14) refers to eating while ignoring Jewish dietary halakhah. Nanos believes that one should rather read Paul within Judaism and that this pericope is not concerned with dietary norms but rather expresses Paul’s resistance to circumcision of Christ-believing non-Jews (like the rest of Galatians). Paula Fredriksen 41 36 R. Reuter, “‘Those of the Circumcision’ (Gal 2:12): Meaning, Reference and Origin”, Filología Neotestamentaria 22 (2009), pp. 149–160. (2017) proposes that Peter withdrew from meals in the households of Gentile believers, since “the ones from James” objected to having food and wine in households containing images of pagan gods. The views expressed at Antioch According to Jerome Murphy-O’Connor 42 37 M. Öhler, “Essen, Ethnos, Identität: Der antiochenische Zwischenfall (Gal 2,11–14)”, in: W. Weiβ (ed.), Der eine Gott und das gemeinschaftliche Mahl: Inklusion und Exklusion biblischer Vorstellungen von Mahl und Gemeinschaft im Kontext antiker Festkultur (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 113, Neukirchen-Vluyn Neukirchener, 2012), pp. 158–199. (2001), in vv. 15–16a Paul attributes to his opponents in Antioch a view that they should have maintained (not the one they actually defended), namely that one is not justified by the works of the law. Justin Taylor 43 38 W.S. Campbell, “Unity in the Community: Rereading Galatians 2:15–21”, in: D.J. Downs and M.L. Skinner (eds.), The Unrelenting God: God’s Action in Scripture: Essays in Honor of Beverly Roberts Gaventa (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2013), pp. 226–241. (2001) points out that the Jerusalem decrees in Acts 15:20, 29 and 21:25 may be interpreted as Noachide commandments and as being similar to decrees for resident aliens (Leviticus 17 and 18), allowing Gentiles to mix with Jews under particular conditions. According to Taylor, James and Peter displayed similar attitudes towards Gentile believers at Antioch. Mark D. Nanos 44 39 V.G. Shillington, James and Paul: The Politics of Identity at the Turn of the Ages (Minneapolis MN: Fortress, 2015). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt12878bh (2002) is of the opinion that “the ones of the circumcision” objected neither to what was eaten nor to the fact that Jewish believers were eating with Gentiles but rather to the notion that the Gentiles were not regarded as mere guests but as social equals (i.e., as “righteous ones”) in spite of not being proselytes. William O. Walker Jr. 45 40 M.D. Nanos, “How Could Paul Accuse Peter of ‘Living Ethné-ishly’ in Antioch (Gal 2:11–21) If Peter Was Eating According to Jewish Dietary Norms?”, Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 6:2 (2016), pp. 199‑223. (2003) believes that the “we” in vv. 15–17 does not include Paul’s opponents. Paul places himself and Peter on one side and his opponents on the other. Simon J. Gathercole 46 41 P. Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (New Haven CT/London: Yale University Press, 2017). (2005) thinks that Paul, Peter and James agreed that table-fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers was allowed, even before the Antioch incident, but at Antioch, Peter changed his mind and returned to his earlier views. Ian W. Scott 47 42 J. Murphy-O’Connor, “Gal 2:15–16a: Whose Common Ground?”, Revue Biblique 108:3 (2001), pp. 376–385. Also available in: J. Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to Galatians: Collected Essays (Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 2012), pp. 78–96. (2007) disagrees with the view that v. 16 expresses common ground between Paul and his opponents. Scott believes that several features of vv. 16–21, as well as the way in which Paul argues in Chapters 3–4, suggest that he expected that the view that he expressed in v. 16 would meet resistance. Don Garlington 48 43 J. Taylor, “The Jerusalem Decrees (Acts 15.20, 29 and 21.25) and the Incident at Antioch (Gal 2.11–14)”, New Testament Studies 47:3 (2001), pp. 372–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688501000224 (2009) argues that, according to vv. 15–16, Paul challenged one of the most important convictions of his opponents, namely that there was a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Paul did not agree with such a distinction and believed that there was no difference in Christ. John W. Taylor 49 44 M.D. Nanos, “What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘Eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch?”, in: M.D. Nanos (ed.), The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 2002), pp. 282–318. (2012) contends that the idea that Paul and other Jewish believers were found to be sinners (v. 17) arose from Paul and not from his opponents. Paul agrees with this statement but does not imply that Christ made them sinners. Andrew A. Das 50 45 W.O. Walker Jr., “Does the ‘We’ in Gal 2.15–17 Include Paul’s Opponents?”, New Testament Studies 49:4 (2003), pp. 560–565. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688503000304 (2013) responds to criticism of Scott, Hunn and other commentators with regard to v. 16 and again argues that v. 16 is best regarded as an ambiguous common ground that was interpreted by Paul in such a way that it supported his argument. Rainer Riesner 51 46 S.J. Gathercole, “The Petrine and Pauline sola fide in Galatians 2”, in: M. Bachmann and J. Woyke (eds.), Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive: Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament (2018) attempts to determine how early the notion of justification by faith can be dated. Riesner argues that Paul appealed to a common foundation in v. 16a, a conviction that possibly goes back to the early Jerusalem church, the essential elements of which come from the Jesus tradition. Karl Olav Sandnes 52

1.182, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157299-9

(2018) uses mirror-reading to determine what Paul’s opponents objected to with regard to his view of the law and why they did so. Sandnes identifies three embedded dictas in Galatians, reflecting the views of the opponents: v. 17 (Paul’s teaching about the law and sin was absurd), 3:21 (Paul believed that the law was opposed to the promises of God) and 5:11 (Paul would eventually realise that the Abraham story that he bases his views on includes circumcision). Michael Winger 53 47 I.W. Scott, “Common Ground? The Role of Galatians 2.16 in Paul’s Argument”, New Testament Studies 53:3 (2007), pp. 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688507000215 (2018) points out that Paul tells several stories in Galatians 1–2. Of central importance are three episodes in which encounters between himself and Peter are recounted: 1:17–18, 2:1–10 and 2:11–14. According to Winger, this ends in v. 14 with a “paradoxical, impossible position” 54 48 D. Garlington, “‘Even We Have Believed’: Galatians 2:15–16 Revisited”, Criswell Theological Review 7:1 (2009), pp. 3–28. and Paul thus guides his audience in vv. 15–21 to the dissolution of any barriers between Jews and Gentiles, invoking their own experience. Andrzej Posadzy 55 49 J.W. Taylor, “Demonstrating Transgression by Building up the Faith: Argumentation in Galatians 2:17–18”, Bulletin for Biblical Research 22:4 (2012), pp. 547–562. (2019) is interested in autobiographical elements in Galatians. According to Posadzy, a careful study of v. 19a within its context indicates that it should be regarded as an autobiographical note, referring to his conversion/vocation.

2. Text-critical, linguistic, stylistic and translation issues

2.1 Text-critical issues

According to Enno Edzard Popkes 56 50 A.A. Das, “The Ambiguous Common Ground of Galatians 2:16 Revisited”, Biblical Research 58 (2013), pp. 49–61. (2004), P46 represents the original reading of 2:12 (τινα [“a certain one”] instead of τινας [“certain ones”], and ἦλθεν [“he came”] instead of ἦλθον [“they came”]), which means that the Antioch incident was caused by the arrival of a single person and not of a group of people. Jermo van Nes 57 51 R. Riesner, “Justificação Pela Fé – Qual Cedo? Uma Contribuição Cronológica e Exegética Para o Jubileu da Reforma”, Vox Scripturae 26:1 (2018), pp. 131–162. https://doi.org/10.25188/FLT-VoxScript(eISSN2447-7443)vXXVI.n1.p131-162.RR (2013) draws attention to the significance of a variant reading of v. 20b: ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ (“in faith of God and Christ I live”). This reading suggests that the expression “faith of Christ” should be interpreted as an objective genitive. David I. Yoon 58 52 K.O. Sandnes, Paul Perceived: An Interactionist Perspective on Paul and the Law (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.412, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), pp. 55–91. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-156102-3 (2014) notes a textual variant in v. 12 that is often simply overlooked: ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν (“when he came”, referring to Peter) instead of ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον (“when they came”, referring to the people from James). Yoon argues that the first option is the best reading, making sense of both internal and external evidence and that it implies that Peter’s refusal to have fellowship with Gentile believers was premeditated.

2.2 Linguistic and semantic issues

Several studies focused on the interpretation of the words ἐὰν μή (“except”) in v. 16: Andrew A. Das 59 53 M. Winger, “‘Being a Jew and Living as a Gentile’: Paul’s Storytelling and the Relationship of Jews and Gentiles According to Galatians 2”, in: L. Baron, J. Hicks-Keeton and M. Thiessen (eds.), The Ways That Often Parted: Essays in Honor of Joel Marcus (Early Christianity and Its Literature, Atlanta GA: SBL Press, 2018), pp. 103–122. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv7r424g.10 (2000) claims that the expression ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“except by faith of Jesus Christ”) was ambiguous. Paul’s opponents would have interpreted these words as a confirmation of their views of the importance of the law whereas Paul would have interpreted them differently, as implying justification by faith alone. Ian W. Scott 60 54 Op. cit., p. 117. (2007) disagrees with the view that v. 16 expresses common ground between Paul and his opponents. Scott believes that several features of vv. 16–21, as well as the way in which Paul argues in Chapters 3–4, suggest that he expected that the view that he expressed in this verse would meet resistance. Debbie Hunn 61 55 A. Posadzy, “‘Ja przez Prawo umarłem dla Prawa’ (Ga 2,19a): Śmierć ‘dla Prawa’ Jako Element Nawrócenia/Powołania Pawła Apostoła”, Colloquia Theologica Ottoniana 1 (2019), pp. 143–163. https://doi.org/10.18276/cto.2019.1-08 (2007) focuses specifically on the question of whether ἐὰν μή (“except”) can only indicate an exception to a full statement (as J.D.G. Dunn claims) and provides proof that this is not necessarily the case. Hunn is also of the opinion that this verse is not ambiguous. Other linguistic and semantic issues also received attention: Gordon D. Fee 62 56 E.E. Popkes, “‘Bevor einer von Jakobus kam ...’: Anmerkungen zur textkritischen und theologiegeschichtlichen Problematik von Gal 2,12”, Novum Testamentum 46:3 (2004), pp. 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568536041528196 (2007) discusses the way in which Paul uses the locative ἐν (“in”) in 1:6, 1:16, 2:20, 3:11–12 and 3:26. According to Fee, with the exception of 1:16, the emphasis is on how the Galatians should maintain their life in Christ, not on how they became his followers. Michael Bachmann 63 57 J. van Nes, “‘Faith(Fulness) of the Son of God’? Galatians 2:20b Reconsidered”, Novum Testamentum 55:2 (2013), pp. 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-12341418 (2010) is of the opinion that the expression “works of the law” (used three times in v. 16 and also in 3:2, 5 and 10) is to be interpreted as referring to halakhot, distinguishing Jews from Gentiles. Dieter Sänger 64 58 D.I. Yoon, “The Antioch Incident and a Textual Variant: ‘ΗΛΘΟΝ’ or ‘ΗΛΘΕΝ’ in Galatians 2:12”, The Expository Times 125:9 (2014), pp. 432–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014524613490369 (2017) thinks that Ἰουδαϊσμός (“Judaism”) and its cognates (used in 1:13ff. and 2:14) should not be understood as only meaning “Judean” (i.e., in an ethnic-regional sense). These words also denote a religious dimension. Read from this perspective vv. 11–14 reflect a dispute in Early Christianity about what constituted Christian identity. Responding to Hanna Stettler’s contribution on justification in Paul, 65 59 A.A. Das, “Another Look at ἐὰν μή in Galatians 2:16”, Journal of Biblical Literature 119:3 (2000), pp. 529–539. Jan Lambrecht 66 60 I.W. Scott, “Common Ground? The Role of Galatians 2.16 in Paul’s Argument”, New Testament Studies 53:3 (2007), pp. 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688507000215 (2017) draws attention to several linguistic issues: v. 15 has a concessive nuance, εἰδότες (“knowing”) in v. 16 refers to Paul and Peter, has a motivating nuance and is best translated in the past tense, and it is best not to put a full stop between v. 16a and b in a translation.

2.3 Stylistic issues

Paul A. Holloway 67 61 D. Hunn, “ἐὰν μή in Galatians 2:16: A Look at Greek Literature”, Novum Testamentum 49:3 (2007), pp. 281–290. (2001) discusses three enthymemes in Galatians (against the background of the way in which it functioned in the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods): in v. 14, 3:3 and 4:16. In the case of v. 14, Holloway points out that Paul uses a complex enthymeme to highlight three contradictions in the way that Peter behaved. Japie P. Malan 68 62 G.D. Fee, “Paul’s Use of Locative ἐν in Galatians: On Text and Meaning in Galatians 1.6; 1.16; 2.20; 3.11–12, and 3.26”, in: C.J. Roetzel and R.L. Foster (eds.), The Impartial God: Essays in Biblical Studies in Honor of (2009) considers the sociohistorical context of the metaphor “being crucified with Christ” (used in v. 19 and Romans 6:6). According to Malan, it would have implied the total renunciation of everything that was important and dear to one, an irrevocable decision.

2.4 Translation issues

Daryl D. Schmidt 69

(New Testament Monographs 22, Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2007), pp. 170–185. Jouette M. Bassler

(2002) draws attention to the effect that the New Perspective on Paul has on translation issues in Romans and Galatians. Terms such as “righteousness of God”, “faith of Christ” and “works of the law” are discussed and vv. 15–21 are used to illustrate this. Michael J. Gorman 70 63 M. Bachmann, “Bemerkungen zur Auslegung zweier Genitivverbindungen des Galaterbriefs: ‘Werke des Gesetzes’ (Gal 2,16 u.ö.) und ‘Israel Gottes’ (Gal 6,16)”, in: M. Bachmann and B. Kollmann (eds.), Umstrittener Galaterbrief: Studien zur Situierung und Theologie des Paulus-Schreibens (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 106, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010), pp. 95–118. Also available in: M. Bachmann, Von Paulus zur Apokalypse – und weiter: Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Neuen Testament (samt englischsprachigen Summaries) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 91, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 277–295. (2017) offers a theological interpretation of vv. 15–21 and concludes it with an alternative translation of these verses. Chin Ook Kim 71 64 D. Sänger, “Ἰουδαϊσμός – ἰουδαΐζειν – ἰουδαϊκῶς: Sprachliche und semantische Überlegungen im Blick auf Gal 1,13f. und 2,14”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 108:1 (2017), pp. 150–185. https://doi.org/10.1515/znw-2017-0005 (2020) investigates the Korean translation of vv. 14b–15 critically, compares it with other translations (Latin, English and German) and suggests a better way to translate these verses in order to solve the problems in the current translation.

3. Wirkungsgeschichte

A broad variety of issues received attention:

3.1 The Early Church:

According to Mark Koehne 72 65 H. Stettler, “Did Paul Invent Justification by Faith?”, Tyndale Bulletin 66:2 (2015), pp. 161–196. https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.29395 (2002), Aquinas interpreted “works of the law” in vv. 15–16 as referring to ceremonial precepts. He distinguished this from “doing the law” – part of the process of justification sprouting from faith acting in love. Alfons Fürst 73 66 J. Lambrecht, In Search of Meaning: Collected Notes on the New Testament (2014–2017) (Balti: Scholars’ Press, 2017), pp. 439–442. (2002) collected 18 of the 26 letters forming part of the correspondence between Augustine and Jerome, translated them into German and commented on them. For Galatians scholars, the correspondence between the two on vv. 11–14 is of particular interest. Jeannine Siat 74 67 P.A. Holloway, “The Enthymeme as an Element of Style in Paul”, Journal of Biblical Literature 120:2 (2001), pp. 339–343. https://doi.org/10.2307/3268298 (2008) offers a fresh analysis of the controversy between Augustine and Jerome after the publication of Jerome’s commentary on Galatians, in particular of the way in which Augustine rejected Jerome’s explanation of the conflict between Paul and Peter at Antioch in his commentary. According to Jerome, it was only a pretended conflict, but Augustine viewed it as a conflict in the real sense of the word. Siat points out that Augustine’s rejection of Jerome’s interpretation actually caused “a new incident from Antioch”. Lucien Legrand 75 68 J.P. Malan, “Die Metafoor ‘Saam met Christus Gekruisig’ in Kultuurhistoriese Verband”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 65:1 (2009), pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v65i1.136 (2009) discusses the way in which the sensus fidelium developed with regard to the Antioch incident under people such as Clement and Ignatius of Antioch, and an orthodoxy was created according to which Paul and Peter served as two focal points. Margaret M. Mitchell 76 69 D.D. Schmidt, “Paul in a New Idiom: Translation Issues in Romans and Galatians”, Forum 5:2 (2002), pp. 127–147. (2012) draws attention to the way in which Chrysostom treated the Antioch incident in a homily that has not been translated yet (hom. in Gal 2.11). In this homily, Chrysostom interpreted the incident as “a counter-movement against hypocrisy”. 77 70 M.J. Gorman, “Reading Gal 2:15–21 Theologically: Beyond Old and New, Beyond West and East”, in: A. Despotis (ed.), Participation, Justification, and Conversion: Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Paul and the Debate between “Old and New Perspectives on Paul” (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.442, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), pp. 321–354. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-155453-7 Adapted version: M.J. Gorman, Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2019), pp. 115–149. Jason A. Myers 78 71 C.O. Kim, “A Reconsideration of the Korean Translation of Galatians 2:14b–15”, 대학과 선교 46 (2020), pp. 289–314. (2013) draws attention to the dispute between Jerome and Augustine on the interpretation of the Antioch incident in order to show that there was at least one person in the Early Church that had a positive interpretation of Paul’s view of the law (and thus similar to the view of the New Perspective). Augustine emphasised the divine origin of the law and pointed out that Paul’s critique of the law should be understood within the context of a Gentile audience. According to Geoffrey D. Dunn 79 72 M. Koehne, “Saint Thomas Aquinas: On ‘Works of the Law’ and ‘Faith of Christ’ in Galatians 2:15–16”, Scripture Bulletin 32:1 (2002), pp. 9–20. (2015), scholars who believe that Augustine’s interpretation of vv. 11–14 is dominated by his anti-Donatism, are not correct. This is only true of the way in which Augustine handles the incident in De baptism. In other instances, such a tendency cannot be found. Wei Hua 80 73 A. Fürst, Augustinus–Hieronymus: Epistulae Mutuae: Briefwechsel (Vol. 1 & 2) (Fontes Christiani 41/1–2, Turnhout: Brepols, 2002). (2015) discusses the differences between Jerome and Augustine’s interpretation of the Antioch incident and how their theological presuppositions differed. Jerome followed Origen (it was only a pretended conflict), but Augustine disagreed. Susan B. Griffith 81 74 J. Siat, “Pierre et Paul dans l’Épître aux Galates: La controverse Jérôme – Augustin”, in: G. Nauroy and M.A. Vannier (eds.), Saint Augustin et la Bible: Actes du colloque de l’université Paul Verlaine-Metz (7–8 Avril 2005) (Bern: Peter Lang, 2008), pp. 259–273. (2017) compares two interpretations of vv. 11–14 by John Chrysostom; one in his well-known commentary on the letter and the other in a lesser-known homily (In illud: In faciem ei restiti). V. 14 is one of the examples that Benjamin D. Haupt 82 75 L. Legrand, “Paul’s Theology in the Context of Early Christian Pluralism”, Jnanadeepa 12:1/2 (2009), pp. 52–65. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4268514 (2017) uses to argue that Tertullian probably did not make use of an already existing Latin translation of the text, but that he translated the parts that he needed from the Greek himself. (The other two examples are 1:6 and 3:27.) Marco Rizzi 83 76 M.M. Mitchell, “Peter’s ‘Hypocrisy’ and Paul’s: Two ‘Hypocrites’ at the Foundation of Earliest Christianity”, New Testament Studies 58:2 (2012), pp. 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868851100035X (2019) investigates the first part of the conflict between Augustine and Jerome as found in his 28th letter to Jerome. Rizzi points out that Augustine could not accept Jerome’s interpretation of v. 14, since he accepted that the verba in Scripture referred to the divine res. A false statement would thus refer to nothing. Augustine’s semiotic theory also underlies his appreciation for the Septuagint (mentioned in the same letter).

3.2 The Middle Ages

Thomas M. Izbicki 84 77 Op. cit., p. 233. (2009) draws attention to the way in which two texts (v. 11 and Acts 15) were understood during the Great Schism (1378–1417). It was interpreted in various ways: as supporting the action of a council or of a theologian confronting his superior(s), as something to be ignored, since Peter had repented, or as something to be restricted to papal heresy, thus excluding unacceptable conduct. Elsa Marmursztejn 85 78 J.A. Myers, “Law, Lies and Letter Writing: An Analysis of Jerome and Augustine on the Antioch Incident (Galatians 2:11–14”, Scottish Journal of Theology 66:2 (2013), pp. 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930613000069 (2011) explains the way in which popes and doctors in the thirteenth century appropriated the fact that Paul blamed Peter in this pericope and what this implied for the relationship between the doctors and the papacy. Felice Lifshitz 86 79 G.D. Dunn, “Augustine’s Use of the Pauline Portrayal of Peter in Galatians 2”, Augustinian Studies 46:1 (2015), pp. 23–42. https://doi.org/10.5840/augstudies201542813 (2014) investigates women monasteries in the Main Valley during the eighth century. One of the issues that Lifschitz discusses is a crucifixion metaphor used to introduce Paul’s letters. According to Lifshitz, the image represents both Paul and Jesus (vv. 19‑20).

3.3 The sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries

Mark A. Seifrid 87 80 W. Hua, “Galatians 2:11–14 and the Exegetical Controversy between Augustine and Jerome”, Logos and Pneuma – Chinese Journal of Theology 42 (2015), pp. 25–46. (2003) focuses on Luther’s interpretation of justification in vv. 15–21. According to Seifrid, Luther interpreted it forensically but regarded it as more than a mere declaration on God’s part or just a transaction performed in the past to be accepted by humans at a later stage. One only has justification as one grasps Christ. In the light of criticism raised by the New Perspective on Paul against the way in which the Reformed tradition interpreted Paul, Stephen Chester 88 81 S.B. Griffith, “Apostolic Authority and the ‘Incident at Antioch’: Chrysostom on Gal. 2:11–4”, Studia Patristica 96 (2017), pp. 117–126. (2008) discusses the way in which Erasmus and the Reformers understood v. 16, in particular the expression “works of the law”, the notion of justification by faith and the expression “faith in Christ/the faithfulness of Christ”. Michael F. Bird 89 82 B.D. Haupt, “Tertullian’s Text of Galatians”, Studia Patristica 96 (2017), pp. 23–28. (2009) points out that Reformed exegetes have understood many Pauline themes correctly but that a better grasp of historical particularities provides one with better theological insight. This is demonstrated by means of this pericope. One of the issues that Irene Backus 90 83 M. Rizzi, “Augustine’s Appreciation of the Septuagint in Light of His Semiotic Theory”, Annali di Scienze Religiose 12 (2019), pp. 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1484/j.asr.5.118276 (2009) uses to illustrate Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples’s interpretation of Paul is vv. 11–12 (the conflict between Paul and Peter). Backus describes his interpretation as idiosyncratic and dominated by a refusal to challenge church tradition about the two apostles. Adam McClendon 91 84 T.M. Izbicki, “The Authority of Peter and Paul: The Use of Biblical Authority During the Great Schism”, in: J. Rollo-Koster and T.M. Izbicki (eds.), A Companion to the Great Western Schism (1378–1417) (Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 17, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2009), pp. 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004162778.i-472.34 (2011) discusses the way in which William Bridge, a Puritan minister, interpreted v. 20 in five sermons preached in 1648. For Bridge, this verse depicts a concise portrayal of the justification of the believer and the nature of the spiritual life flowing from this event. Pauline Renoux-Caron 92 85 E. Marmursztejn, “Autorité et vérité dans les relations entre la papauté et les docteurs parisiens au XIIIe siècle”, in: G.L. Potestà and E. Müller-Luckner (eds.), Autorität und Wahrheit: Kirchliche Vorstellungen, Normen und Verfahren (13. bis 15. Jahrhundert) (Schriften des Historischen Kollegs 84, München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2011), pp. 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110446753-004 (2011) offers an overview of José de Sigüenza’s interpretation of the conflict between Jerome and Augustine on the interpretation of vv. 11–14 in his book on Jerome (1595). He tried to reconcile the viewpoints of the two for apologetic purposes, namely, to show accord between the doctors and the fathers of the Early Church. Michael Morson 93 86 F. Lifshitz, Religious Women in Early Carolingian Francia: A Study of Manuscript Transmission and Monastic Culture (Fordham Series in Medieval Studies, New York NY: Fordham University Press, 2014), pp. 65–86. https://doi.org/10.5422/fordham/9780823256877.001.0001 (2012) defends the interpretation of the expression “works of the law” (used in v. 16) by Luther and Calvin as “good works” against criticism by the New Perspective. Morson finds their interpretation of the expression exegetically good and pastorally useful. Johannes Klösges 94 87 M.A. Seifrid, “Paul, Luther, and Justification in Gal 2:15–21”, Westminster Theological Journal 65:2 (2003), pp. 215–230. (2012) highlights the theological implications that Luther drew from v. 16 regarding justification, compares them to the findings of the New Perspective on Paul, situates Luther’s views within developments of a theology of grace, and discusses the contemporary implications of all of this. Jonathan A. Linebaugh 95 88 S. Chester, “When the Old Was New: Reformation Perspectives on Galatians 2:16”, The Expository Times 119:7 (2008), pp. 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014524608091090 (2013) disagrees with views that Reformed interpretations of justification fail to coordinate the notion of justification and Christology. According to Linebaugh, an investigation of Luther’s interpretation of vv. 16 and 19–20 shows that his view of faith was radically Christo-centric. Luca Baschera 96 89 M.F. Bird, “What If Martin Luther Had Read the Dead Sea Scrolls? Historical Particularity and Theological Interpretation in Pauline (2017) discusses the difference between Luther’s and Bullinger’s interpretation of vv. 11–14. Whereas Luther thought that Peter erred in terms of doctrine (“Lehrauffassung”), Bullinger was of the opinion that it was merely an instance of misconduct (“Fehlverhalten”). Samuel Vollenweider 97

Journal of Theological Interpretation 3:1 (2009), pp. 107–125. Theology: Galatians as a Test Case”,

(2017) uses three examples from Galatians (1:1–9, 2:12–21 and 3:13) and Philippians to illustrate Bullinger’s interpretation of Paul. Vollenweider highlights two aspects: Bullinger follows Melanchthon’s rhetorical approach but in a milder way and, furthermore, his hermeneutical approach was characterised by a focus on the scopus of Scripture and the way in which it could be organised in terms of loci. Kenneth P. Minkema, Adriaan C. Neele and Allen M. Stanton 98 90 I. Backus, “Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples: A Humanist or a Reformist View of Paul and His Theology?”, in: R.W. Holder (ed.), A Companion to Paul in the Reformation (Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 15, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2009), pp. 213–240. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004174924.i-660.12 (2019) published several sermons by Jonathan Edwards that have not been published before, two of which are from this pericope, on vv. 17 and 20.

3.4 The nineteenth to the twentieth centuries

Samuel Fernández 99 91 A. McClendon, “A Puritan’s Perspective of Galatians 2:20”, Puritan Reformed Journal 3:1 (2011), pp. 56–77. (2005) discusses the way in which Alberto Hurtado, a Jesuit saint, interpreted v. 20. According to Fernández, Hurtado’s interpretation of this verse (the verse that he cites most in his writings) helps one to understand his spirituality. In his spirituality, the notion of being in Christ was integrated with that of recognising him in others, especially the poor.

3.5 Contemporary situations

Waldecir Gonzaga 100 92 P. Renoux-Caron, “Resonancias Hispánicas de las Discrepancias entre San Agustín y San Jerónimo en la Vida de San Jerónimo (1595) de Fray José de Sigüenza”, Criticón 111–112 (2011), pp. 121–136. https://doi.org/10.4000/criticon.2543 (2007) assesses the way in which 2:1–21 has been interpreted since Vatican II in order to obtain an in-depth understanding of the text and to work out its ecumenical and pastoral implications. David T. Ejenobo 101 93 M. Morson, “Reformed, Lutheran, and ‘New Perspective’: A Dialogue between Traditions Regarding the Interpretation of ‘Works of the Law’ in Galatians”, Canadian Theological Review 1:2 (2012), pp. 61–67. (2009) investigates three passages in Paul’s letters (v. 20, 1 Corinthians 12:3 and Romans 8:9), highlighting the importance of the mystical element in Paul’s view of the Spirit. This is appropriated for the African context: if this aspect is taught more often, the Christian religion will be accepted more readily. Korbinian Schmidt 102 94 J. Klösges, “Gnade wird gelebt, nicht doziert! Gedanken zur Rechtfertigungslehre Martin Luthers nach seinen Kommentaren zu Gal 2,16 auf der Folie des frühchristlichen Konflikts zwischen Paulus und den Gemeinden in Galatien”, Catholica 66:4 (2012), pp. 292–319. (2010) considers the implications of the New Perspective on Paul for a theology of the religions, in the words of v. 21 (adapted): “If justification comes through other religions, then Christ died for nothing”. For Schmidt, the theological challenge thus is to explain how one can be in Christ without knowing him at all. Pierre Debergé 103 95 J.A. Linebaugh, “The Christo-Centrism of Faith in Christ: Martin Luther’s Reading of Galatians 2.16, 19–20”, New Testament Studies 59:4 (2013), pp. 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688513000210 (2011) illustrates the way in which Simon Légasse understood the Pauline writings by discussing his interpretation of vv. 16, 19–20 and 5:6b. According to Debergé, Légasse succeeded in combining exegetical rigour and theological depth in order to identify the contours of Christian living. Lisa M. Hess 104 96 L. Baschera, “Fehlverhalten oder Irrtum in der Lehre? Die Deutung des ‘Apostelstreites’ (Gal 2,11–14) und dessen Ursache bei Heinrich Bullinger und Martin Luther”, in: C. Christ-von Wedel and S. Grosse (eds.), Auslegung und Hermeneutik der Bibel in der Reformationszeit (Historia Hermeneutica: Series Studia 14, Berlin/Boston MA: De Gruyter, 2017), pp. 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110467925-010 (2012) explains how four weeks of keeping a kosher home changed her perspective. Although being a long-time Presbyterian, Hess then found it difficult to accept Paul’s polemic in Galatians. Suny George Kunnel 105 97 S. Vollenweider, “Paulus in Zürich: Zur Briefauslegung von Heinrich Bullinger”, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 114:1 (2017), pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1628/004435417X14822419363900 (2012) considers the implications of the notions of justification by faith in vv. 15–16 and faith and works in James 2:14–26 for the current situation in India. According to Kunnel, both views represent the gospel and this message should be reinterpreted in a context of cultural and religious pluralism. Thus, both individual salvation and social liberation are needed. G. Daan Cloete 106 98 K.P. Minkema, A.C. Neele and A.M. Stanton (eds.), Sermons by Jonathan Edwards on the Epistle to the Galatians (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2019), pp. 39–89. (2013) points out that vv. 15–21 and the Belhar Confession both reflect crucial periods of transformation in the history of the church. Cloete motivates this by looking at the crucial concepts that played a role in each of these instances. Emily A. Peck-McClain 107 99 S. Fernández, “‘Ya no vivo Yo, es Cristo que Vive en Mí’ (Gál 2,20): ‘Ser Cristo’ Como Clave de la Vida del Padre Alberto Hurtado”, Teología y Vida 46:3 (2005), pp. 352–373. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0049-34492005000200003 (2015) considers the implications of the notion of agency in Paul’s letters for adolescent girls. The type of agency depicted in 2:20 can offer liberation and hope for adolescent girls, since it is possible to live in the faith in/of Christ even though the power of sin has not been conquered fully. A. Mininger 108 100 W. Gonzaga, “A Verdade do Evangelho” (Gl 2,5.14) e a Autoridade na Igreja: Gl 2,1–21 na Exegese do Vaticano II Até os Nossos Dias: História, Balanço e Novas Perspectivas (Tesi Gregoriana: Teologia 145, Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2007). (2016) appropriates the message of vv. 2, 11–14 and Philippians 1:12–18 for the current context. For Mininger, one of the best ways to test one’s God-centredness in the ministry is the way one handles conflict with other people, in particular with peers. Ashok Ram Rana 109 101 D.T. Ejenobo, “The Mystical Element in Paul’s Theology of the Holy Spirit: An African Interpretation”, The Asia Journal of Theology 23:1 (2009), pp. 69–81. (2017) investigates the socio-historical context of the Antioch incident, in particular how eating together affects the identity of individuals and communities. Rana then appropriates the results of the investigation for a pluralistic Indian context. This pericope is one of the passages that Fatima Tofighi 110 102 K. Schmidt, “‘So wäre Christus vergeblich gestorben’ (Gal 2,21): Die ‘Neue Perspektive auf Paulus’ und ihre Bedeutung für die Systematische Theologie”, Studia Missionalia 59 (2010), pp. 213–230. (2017) discusses in a study of the way in which Paul’s letters were used to construct the European self. Tofighi shows how a Lutheran binary of faith vs. guilt in Pauline interpretation has been replaced by a universal vs. particular binary but argues that this is not necessarily less arbitrary or exclusivist than the Lutheran binary. Radu Gheorghiță 111 103 P. Debergé, “Le père Simon Légasse: Quand rigueur exégétique et profondeur théologique, à la suite de Paul, dessinent les contours de la vie chrètienne”, Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique 112:1 (2011), pp. 5–16. (2018) illustrates the importance of the Reformed notion of sola fide by an exegesis of vv. 15–21. Gheorghiță believes that this message remains valid today and that Paul would have added another important notion, solum evangelium. According to Keith Maynor 112 104 L.M. Hess, “Encountering Habits of Mind at Table: Kashrut, Jews, and Christians”, Cross Currents 62:3 (2012), pp. 328–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-3881.2012.00244.x (2018), the central issue in 1:16–2:21 is not so much Paul’s polemics, but his testimony about the way in which he was transformed at the Damascus event. Maynor develops the implications of this insight for current transformational leadership theory. Christine Wenona Hoffmann 113 105 S.G. Kunnel, “‘Faith and Works’ in James 2:14-26 and ‘Justification by Faith Alone’ in Galatians 2:15–16: A Relevant Debate for the Church in (2019) analysed 235 sermons on v. 16 and Romans 3:28 in order to identify pitfalls and benefits caused by the interaction between text, tradition and sermon. Hoffmann also makes suggestions as to how one can avoid such pitfalls. Lucien Legrand 114

Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection 76:6 (2012), pp. 425–435. India Today”,

(2019) uses vv. 11–14 as a window showing how the early church struggled with the contextualisation of the gospel. This is appropriated for the current situation: “Contextualisation is the search for a koinonia that, while remaining faithful to the ‘truth of the Gospel,’ takes into account the rich pluralism of world/human panorama.” 115 106 G.D. Cloete, “Galatians 2:15–21 and the Belhar Confession (1986) in Dialogue”, Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif 54:3/4 (2013), pp. 93–104. https://doi.org/10.5952/54-0-346 Jonathan A. Linebaugh 116 107 E.A. Peck-McClain, “Agency in Paul and Implications for Adolescent Girls”, Religious Education 110:1 (2015), pp. 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344087.2015.989099 (2020) discusses the “I” in v. 20 in dialogue with Luther. Linebaugh is of the opinion that the no longer living “I” and the now living “I” are not identical. The second “I” is in the first “I” as a gift, even though the second “I” is also the first “I” that was loved by Christ. Tom Morris 117 108 M.A. Mininger, “A God-Centered Ministry and Responses to Conflict between Peers: Perspectives from the Apostle Paul”, Mid-America Journal of Theology 27 (2016), pp. 123–136. (2020) views Paul’s behaviour in vv. 11–14 as an example of bold leadership in a time of crisis. Like Paul, leaders in our time should have the moral courage to confront any form of unethical behaviour. Likewise, Aseng Yulias Samongilailai 118 109 A.R. Rana, Socio-Historical Context of Paul’s Confrontation in Galatians and Christian Identity in a Pluralistic Society (Biblical Hermeneutics Rediscovered 5, New Delhi: Christian World Imprints, 2017). (2020) shows from the same passage that it is appropriate for believers to rebuke spiritual leaders when they deviate from the truth of the gospel.

3.6 Broader periods of time

Abraham van de Beek 119 110 F. Tofighi, Paul’s Letters and the Construction of the European Self (Library of New Testament Studies 572/Scriptural Traces: Critical Perspectives on the Reception and Influence of the Bible 10, London: Bloomsbury/T & T Clark, 2017). https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567672551 (2014) explores the reception of v. 20 by Patristic authors and by Luther and Calvin, and shows that their interpretation of this verse often does not fit the theological frameworks in which later generations placed these authors.

4. Interpretative approaches

4.1 Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures

Sylvia C. Keesmaat 120 111 R. Gheorghiță, “Solum evangelium – Gal 2:15–21”, Jurnal teologic 17:1 (2018), pp. 5–45. (2004) discusses Paul’s use of Psalms in Roman and Galatians. In the case of Galatians, Keesmaat focuses on two allusions to the Psalms (Psalm 143:2 in v. 16 and Psalm 89 in 3:16). In both cases, Keesmaat finds evidence supporting the notion that Paul viewed Christ as the Messiah, thereby challenging both imperial paganism and nationalistic Judaism. Moisés Silva 121 112 K. Maynor, “Social and Cultural Textures in Galatians 1”, Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership 8:1 (2018), pp. 226–235. (2007) discusses two allusions and all the quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in Galatians. In the case of this pericope, Silva offers a detailed explanation of Paul’s use of Psalm 143:2 (142:2 LXX) in v. 16, pointing out that Paul had a broader concept of the law and that the quotation brings definite apocalyptic overtones to his argument. One of the issues that Jean-Sébastian Rey 122 113 C.W. Hoffmann, Homiletik und Exegese: Konzepte von Rechtfertigung in der evangelischen Predigtpraxis der Gegenwart (Arbeiten zur Praktischen Theologie 75, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2019). (2014) highlights in a discussion of the “interdiscursivity” between the Dead Sea Scrolls and Galatians is “doxic discourse”. This refers to the way in which Paul refers to Psalm 143:2 in v. 16. Martinus C. de Boer 123 114 L. Legrand, “The Antiochian Conflict in Galatians 2:11–14: Contextualisation Problems in Apostolic Times”, Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection 83:4 (2019), pp. 242–262. (2020) investigates Paul’s use of Psalm 142:2 LXX in v. 16 and in Romans 3:20 and concludes that Paul probably made use of an anthology and that he used the quotation in order to stress the seriousness of the situation in which humankind finds itself.

4.2 Social-scientific/sociological approaches

In an interpretation of Paul’s version of the Antioch incident in this pericope, Christfried Böttrich 124 115 Op. cit., p. 24. (2002) distinguishes between relational and subject level (“Beziehungs- und Sachebebene”) and makes use of the insights offered by modern conflict theory to illuminate the pericope. Magnus Zetterholm 125 116 J.A. Linebaugh, “‘The Speech of the Dead’: Identifying the No Longer and Now Living ‘I’ of Galatians 2.20”, New Testament Studies 66:1 (2020), pp. 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0028688519000365 (2003) explains the separation between Judaism and Christianity at Antioch by means of a social-scientific approach. Whereas previous attempts have primarily focused on ideological differences between the groups, Zetterholm shows that there was an interplay between ideological and sociological factors in this instance. One of the examples that Soham Al-Suadi 126 117 T. Morris, “Bold Leadership in Times of Crises: Inclusion, Fear, and Courage in Galatians 2:11–14”, in: B.E. Winston (ed.), Leadership Growth through Crisis: An Investigation of Leader Development During Tumultous Circumstances (Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020), pp. 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25439-1_10 (2011) picks to illustrate the benefits of ritual-theoretical exegesis is vv. 11–14. Al-Suadi shows that the Antioch incident was an inner-Jewish conflict about the legitimacy of another cultural community. Paul conducts this debate by means of the terminology of the communal meal. Atsuhiro Asano 127 118 A.Y. Samongilailai, “Studi Gramatikal Galatia 2:11–14: Patutkah Menegur Pemimpin Rohani?”, Dunamis: Jurnal Teologi dan Pendidikan Kristiani 4:2 (2020), pp. 183–206. https://doi.org/10.30648/dun.v4i2.254 (2014) identifies three conflicting views on the ethnic identity of the Christian community reflected in 2:1–14: Gentile believers are a secondary group, attached to the Jewish community (the view of the Jerusalem leaders), Gentile believers have to become Jewish in the full sense of the word (the view of the “false brothers”) and Gentile believers are part of a new authentic community (Paul’s view). Stephen Richard Turley 128 119 A. van de Beek, “The Reception of Galatians 2:20 in the Patristic Period and the Reformation”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 19 (2014), pp. 42–57. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v33i2s.3 (2015) investigates references to baptism and meals in Galatians and 1 Corinthians from the perspective of ritual theory. According to Turley, these rituals were primarily revelatory in that they revealed the coming of the Messianic age by means of the bodies of the believers who participated in such rituals. John W. Daniels Jr. 129 120 S.C. Keesmaat, “The Psalms in Romans and Galatians”, in: S. Moyise and M.J.J. Menken (eds.), The Psalms in the New Testament (The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel, New York NY/London: T & T Clark Continuum, 2004), pp. 139–161. (2017) approaches vv. 11–14 from a sociological perspective. The way in which Paul recalled his argument with Peter amounted to “agonistic epistolary gossip” and was meant as a challenge to his opponents in Galatia and perhaps also to the leaders in Jerusalem.

4.3 Rhetorical approaches

Jean-Noël Aletti 130 121 M. Silva, “Galatians”, in: G. Beale and D. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), pp. 785–810. (2005) regards 1:11–2:21 as a unified argument: 1:11–12 is the propositio, 2:14b–21 is a brief speech bringing the argument to a climax and 2:16 reformulates Paul’s gospel while also serving as the thesis of the next two chapters. D. Francois Tolmie 131 122 J.-S. Rey, “Les manuscrits de la Mer Morte et l’Épître aux Galates: Quelques cas d’interdiscursivité”, in: J.-S. Rey (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of (2005) offers a text-based rhetorical analysis of Galatians. Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope is summarised as recounting his version of the incident at Antioch in order to show how he stood firmly for the “truth of the gospel” – a concept that forms the focal point of his rhetorical strategy in this part of the letter. Debbie Hunn 132

Judah 102, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2014), pp. 17–49. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004230071_004

(2010) notes that scholars interpret Paul’s rhetorical strategy in 1:13–2:21 in different ways: defence of his apostleship, denial of accusations and depiction of himself as a paradigm. Hunn thinks that Paul distinguishes between two options in 1:10 – pleasing people or pleasing God – and then defends his gospel by referring to his experience at the Damascus event and what motivated him in life. Bartolomeo Puca 133 123 M.C. de Boer, Paul, Theologian of God’s Apocalypse: Essays on Paul and Apocalyptic (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2020). Original version: M.C. de Boer, “De Psalmen bij Paulus: LXX Psalm 142:2 in Galaten 2:16 en Romeinen 3:20”, Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese van de Bijbel en zijn Tradities 25 (2010), pp. 83–94. (2011) draws attention to Paul’s paradoxical self-praise in 1:11–2:21. Paul shifts the attention from his own personal experience to God, thereby emphasising the divine origin of his gospel and offering an example of faithfulness to it. According to Eric Stewart 134 124 C. Böttrich, “Petrus und Paulus in Antiochien (Gal 2,11–21)”, Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift 19:2 (2002), pp. 224–239. (2011), Paul’s argument about the change in Peter’s behaviour is best understood in terms of the rhetorical and social conventions associated with the encomium. Paul explains the change in his own behaviour as something positive whereas the change in Peter’s behaviour is depicted in negative terms. Ian J. Elmer 135 125 M. Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity (Routledge Early Church Monographs, London: Routledge, 2003). (2013) thinks that Paul’s opponents used their own version of his conversion and his apostleship against him. Paul responded by using the narratio of the letter as a rhetorical strategy in 1:13–2:14 to counter such attempts. Peter von der Osten-Sacken 136 126 S. Al-Suadi, Essen als Christusgläubige: Ritualtheoretische Exegese paulinischer Texte (Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 55, Tübingen: Francke, 2011). (2014) discusses Paul’s use of μὴ γένοιτο (“definitely not!”) as a rhetorical formula in Romans and also draws attention to the way the expression is used in Galatians (similar to its use in Romans). In v. 17, Paul uses it when rejecting a wrong interpretation of the gospel by referring to the way in which a believer’s life is changed by baptism and in 3:21, when denying that promise and law should be viewed as opposing each other. Antonio Pitta 137 127 A. Asano, “Galatians 2.1–14 as Depiction of the Church’s Early Struggle for Community-Identity Construction”, in: J.B. Tucker and C.A. Baker (eds.), T & T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), pp. 311–332. (2015) draws attention to mimesis in Galatians. Although it does not occur explicitly, it is found implicitly in 1:13–2:21, 3:5–6 and 4:28–31. This shows that mimesis is very important to Paul in situations where religious identity is in danger. Based on a rhetorical and narrative analysis of vv. 11–14, Alfredo Delgado Gómez 138 128 S.R. Turley, The Ritualized Revelation of the Messianic Age: Washings and Meals in Galatians and 1 Corinthians (Library of New Testament Studies 544, London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015), pp. 103–131. (2016) proposes that the open ending of Paul’s version of the Antioch incident was a deliberate strategy on his side to create expectation in his audience.

4.4 Narrative approaches

Edward Adams 139 129 J.W. Daniels Jr., “Engendering Gossip in Galatians 2:11–14: The Social Dynamics of Honor, Shame, Performance, and Gossip”, Biblical Theology Bulletin 47:3 (2017), pp. 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146107917715589 (2000) analyses four facets of point of view in 1:13–2:14 (time, space, psychology and ideology) and shows how they serve Paul’s rhetorical goal of establishing a self-defence against his opponents. Timothy Wiarda 140 130 J.-N. Aletti, “Galates 1–2: Quelle fonction et quelle démonstration?”, Biblica 86:3 (2005), pp. 305–323. English version: J.-N. Aletti, New Approaches for Interpreting the Letters of Saint Paul: Collected Essays: Rhetoric, Soteriology, Christology and Ecclesiology: Translated from the French by Peggy Manning Meyer (Subsidia Biblica 43, Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2012), pp. 215–236. (2004) discusses plot and character in 1:13–2:21. According to Wiarda, such an analysis does not only confirm the traditional interpretation of the narrative (that Paul uses it to establish his credentials) but also shows that it has a definitive paradigmatic goal. Joel Willitts 141 131 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 (2016) offers a narratological reading of the pericope. Willitts is of the view that the narrative presents “Paul as a Rabbi of Messianic Judaism instructing Jewish believers in Jesus how to live out their trust in Yeshua as Torah observant Jews”. 142 132 D. Hunn, “Pleasing God or Pleasing People? Defending the Gospel in Galatians 1–2”, Biblica 91:1 (2010), pp. 24–49. One of the passages that Greger Andersson 143 133 B. Puca, Una Periautologia Paradossale: Analisi Retorico-Letteraria di Gal 1,13–2,21 (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 186, Roma: Pontificio Università Gregoriana, 2011). (2019) discusses in a study of “narrating selves” in the Bible is 1:11–2:14. Andersson thinks that it is used in this instance by Paul both to defend his authority and to offer himself as a role model.

4.5 Ideology-critical approaches

Francisco Lozada Jr. 144 134 E. Stewart, “I’m Okay, You’re Not Okay: Constancy of Character and Paul’s Understanding of Change in His Own and Peter’s Behaviour”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 67:3 (2011), pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v67i3.1002 (2017) illustrates three different reading strategies by Latino/a Biblical scholars. One of these is an ideological reading strategy, illustrated by this pericope. Lozado shows how an ideological reading may be used to bring about a conversation in which an alternative ideology is proposed, in this instance, particularly regarding the notions of recognition and hospitality.

4.6 Other

Pieter Verster 145 135 I.J. Elmer, “Setting the Record Straight at Galatia: Paul’s narratio (Gal 1:13–2:14) as Response to the Galatian Conflict”, in: W. Mayer and B. Neil (eds.), Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 121, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), pp. 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110291940.21 (2007) uses speech act theory to distinguish between various types of non-authentic questions in Galatians. This makes it possible to describe the intended effect of each question more accurately. Verster classifies v. 14 as “a statement negative” and v. 17 as “an emphatic rhetorical interrogative”. David I. Yoon 146 136 P. von der Osten-Sacken, Der Gott der Hoffnung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Theologie des Paulus (Studien zu Kirche und Israel: Neue Folge 3, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014), pp. 217–245. (2014/2015) uses register analysis to identify the end of Paul’s words to Peter. Such an analysis shows that Paul’s words to Peter end at v. 21 and not at v. 14.

5. Theological issues

5.1 Approaches to the theology of Paul

Jens Schröter 147 137 A. Pitta, “I Gradi della Mimesi nella Lettera ai Galati”, Liber Annuus 65 (2015), pp. 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.LA.4.000113 (2013) discusses the implications of the New Perspective on Paul for the Lutheran understanding of Paul, in particular by looking at vv. 15–17. Schröter highlights the importance of the notion of God’s justifying grace but also points out that the social and ecclesiological implications of this idea sometimes do not receive enough attention in Lutheran circles. Vasile Mihoc 148 138 A. Delgado Gómez, “El Final Abierto del Incidente de Antioquía según Pablo en Gal 2,11–14”, Salmanticensis 63:1 (2016), pp. 93–109. (2017) offers an interpretation of vv. 15–21 challenging the New Perspective on Paul. Mihoc also believes that the Antioch incident did not cause a final falling-out between Peter and Paul.

5.2 Paul: Self-understanding

Caroline Johnson Hodge 149 139 E. Adams, “Ideology and Point of View in Galatians 1–2: A Critical Linguistic Analysis”, in: S.E. Porter (ed.), Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 193, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 205–254. (2005) approaches the way in which Paul constructed his identity as a teacher of the Gentiles from the perspective of anthropology and critical race theory. From such a perspective, it is clear that Paul described himself in terms of multiple identities and shifted among them, depending on what would serve his argument best. In 2:11–14, he is thus depicted as willing to forgo some practices of the law (part of a Judean identity) in order to interact with Gentiles.

5.3 Gospel

Craig L. Blomberg 150 140 T. Wiarda, “Plot and Character in Galatians 1–2”, Tyndale Bulletin 55:2 (2004), pp. 231–252. https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.29175 (2002) gives an overview of the way in which the New Testament defines and handles heresy. In the case of Galatians 1–2, Blomberg points out that Paul only vilified his opponents in such a harsh way when he believed people’s eternal destiny was endangered.

5.4 Christology

Antje and Michael Labahn 151 141 J. Willitts, “Paul the Rabbi of Messianic Judaism: Reading the Antioch Incident within Judaism as an Irreducibility Story”, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 6:2 (2016), pp. 225–247. (2000) argue that for Paul the insight that Jesus is the Son of God is the crucial aspect in the proclamation of the gospel. Accordingly, this title is also very important for Paul’s self-understanding, as is clear from v. 20 (as well as from 1:16, 4:4 and 6).

5.5 Anthropology

One of the issues that Günter Röhser 152 142 Op. cit., p. 246. (2012) investigates in a study of Paul’s view on the power of sin is the term “sinner”, used in v. 17. In this instance, Röhser stresses that Paul does not regard the term “sinner” as an adequate self-description of believers. Gitte Buch-Hansen 153 143 G. Andersson, “Narrating Selves and the Literary in the Bible”, Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas 17:1 (2019), pp. 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.2019.0005 (2017) disagrees with the trend dominating New Testament scholarship as a result of Krister Stendahl’s 154 144 F. Lozada Jr., Toward a Latino/a Biblical Interpretation (Resources for Biblical Study 91, Atlanta GA: SBL Press, 2017). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1w6tf2p essay (1963) and finds more continuation between Paul and Augustine (in spite of some difference). Buch-Hansen also argues that Paul’s arguments in v. 16 and Romans 7 (προσωποποιία en miniature) are based on a view of original sin that was similar to what is found in Philo’s De opificio mundi. In another contribution, Buch Hansen 155 145 P. Verster, “The Implications of Non-Authentic Questions in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9 (2007), pp. 142–161. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52344 (2017) specifically focuses on Galatians and points out the similarities between Paul’s view of original sin (as can be seen in the vice list in 5:19–21 and the Sarah-Hagar-allegory) and the discourse on anthropology in Hellenistic philosophy (Philo, Epicureanism and Stoicism). Susan Grove Eastman 156 146 D.I. Yoon, “Identifying the End of Paul’s Speech to Peter in Galatians 2: Register Analysis as a Heuristic Tool”, Filología Neotestamentaria 28/29 (2014/2015), pp. 57–79. (2017) argues that Paul did not conceive of the human self as something autonomous but as something constituted in relationship to sin, Christ and others. Eastman traces this notion in Romans 7 (the human self and sin), Philippians 2 (Christ’s participation in the human condition) and Galatians 2:19–20 (the reconstituted self, united to Christ). Simon Butticaz 157 147 J. Schröter, “‘The New Perspective on Paul’: Eine Anfrage an die Lutherische Paulusdeutung?”, Lutherjahrbuch 80 (2013), pp. 142–158. https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666874451.142 (2017) investigates the way in which Paul tried to manage particular ethnic parameters in Galatians and 1 Corinthians by looking at dietary issues. In the case of Galatians, Butticaz finds that Paul used a type of anthropological logic whereby the distinctive habits of both Jews and Gentiles were re-ordered by a Christological “meta-identity”.

5.6 Covenant

William Dumbrell 158 148 V. Mihoc, “Galatians 2:15–21: A Commentary Challenging the ‘New Perspective on Paul’”, in: A. Despotis (ed.), Participation, Justification, and Conversion: Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Paul and the Debate between ‘Old and New Perspectives on Paul’ (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.442, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), pp. 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-155453-7 (2001) highlights a reluctance amongst New Testament scholars to give the covenant its due. According to Dumbrell, the term “works of the law” in this pericope refers to the Sinai covenant and one should understand Paul as claiming that acceptance of the new covenant is only possible through faith in Christ.

5.7 Law

Martin G. Abegg Jr. 159 149 C.J. Hodge, “Apostle to the Gentiles: Constructions of Paul’s Identity”, Biblical Interpretation 13:3 (2005), pp. 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568515054388146 (2001) discusses the expression “works of the law” in 4QMMT and Paul, arguing that although it is clear that Paul did not know 4QMMT, the theological issue reflected in 4QMMT in this regard apparently survived intact until the first century CE. Robert Keith Rapa 160 150 C.L. Blomberg, “The New Testament Definition of Heresy (or When do Jesus and the Apostles Really Get Mad?)”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45:1 (2002), pp. 59–72. (2001) interprets the expression “works of the law” as referring to legalistic observances of the Jewish law, which were mistakenly believed by Paul’s opponents to be salvific. In dialogue with recent studies on the term “works of the law”, Michael Bachmann 161 151 A. Labahn and M. Labahn, “Jesus als Sohn Gottes bei Paulus: Eine soteriologische Grundkonstante der paulinischen Christologie”, in: U. Schnelle, T. Söding and M. Labahn (eds.), Paulinische Christologie: Exegetische Beiträge: Hans Hübner zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), pp. 97–120. (2005) opts for interpreting it as a reference to halakhic regulations. It is clear that Paul believed that salvation was based on the Christ-event and not on the regulations of the law. William D. Barrick 162 152 G. Röhser, “Paulus und die Herrschaft der Sünde”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 103:1 (2012), pp. 84–110. https://doi.org/10.1515/znw-2012-0005 (2005) rejects the interpretation of “works of the law” by proponents of the New Perspective. Instead, Barrick understands the concept as referring to human deeds meant to earn merit with God. Jacqueline C.R. de Roo 163 153 G. Buch-Hansen, “Beyond the New Perspective: Reclaiming Paul’s Anthropology”, Studia Theologica 71:1 (2017), pp. 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0039338X.2017.1308303 (2007) compares the expression “works of the law” at Qumran and in Paul (used in v. 16). According to De Roo, at Qumran it refers to deeds that were done in obedience to God’s law, which were regarded as a means of atonement. In Galatians, however, “works of the law” refers to the works of Abraham, which could not bring about atonement. Paul L. Owen 164 154 K. Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West”, Harvard Theological Review 56:3 (1963), pp. 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816000024779 (2007) interprets the genitive (“works of the law”) in Romans and Galatians as a subjective genitive, i.e., as referring to the works brought about by the law (which failed to produce righteousness). Michael Bachmann 165 155 G. Buch-Hansen, “Early Conceptions of Original Sin: Reading Galatians through Philo’s De opificio mundi”, in: J.R. Dodson and A.W. Pitts (eds.), Paul and the Greco-Roman Philosophical Tradition (Library of New Testament Studies 527, London/Oxford/New York NY: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2017), pp. 221–243. https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567678362.ch-011 (2009) disagrees with explanations of “works of the law” as referring to good deeds of people (as Hofius proposes) and instead understands it as referring to halakhot (a set of regulations/boundary markers). Bachmann supports this choice by various texts: Revelation 2:26, T. Levi 19:1–2, 4QMMT C27 and y. Qid 63d. In another study, Bachmann 166 156 S.G. Eastman, Paul and the Person: Reframing Paul’s Anthropology (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2017), pp. 151–175. For a response to Eastman’s views, see: J.A. Linebaugh, “Participation and the Person in Pauline Theology: A Response to Susan Eastman’s Paul and the Person”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40:4 (2018), pp. 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x18769517 (2010) focuses on the genitive in the expression “works of the law”, again arguing that this is to be interpreted as referring to halakhot distinguishing Jews from Gentiles. According to Mark D. Nanos 167 157 S. Butticaz, “Paul and Ethnicity between Discourse and Social Practices”, Early Christianity 8:3 (2017), pp. 309–335. https://doi.org/10.1628/186870317X15017545210206 (2009), the idea that Paul did not follow Jewish dietary regulations and that he did not want his followers to observe them does not hold true, since texts such as vv. 11–15 (and 1 Corinthians 8–10 and Romans 14–15) that are interpreted to support such a view actually show the opposite. Debbie Hunn 168 158 W. Dumbrell, “Galatians 2:14–21: A New Covenant Perspective”, European Journal of Theology 10:2 (2001), pp. 105–116. (2010) explains Paul’s logic in this pericope as follows: 1. The law does not justify humans but condemns them (expressed in the first-person plural); 2. Since Christ liberated believers from the law, they should not return to it (expressed in the first person singular). Pancha Wiguna Yahya 169 159 M.G. Abegg Jr., “4QMMT, Paul, and ‘Works of the Law’”, in: P. Flint (ed.), The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape and Interpretation (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, Grand Rapids MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2001), pp. 203–216. (2013) disagrees with James D.G. Dunn’s interpretation of the term “works of the law” in v. 16. According to Yahya, the context, literary style and historical setting show that it refers to obedience to the law in order to obtain salvation. Barry F. Parker 170 160 R.K. Rapa, The Meaning of “Works of the Law” in Galatians and Romans (Studies in Biblical Literature 31, New York NY: Peter Lang, 2001). (2013) reads the expression “works of the law” against the background of the Jewish settlement in Asia Minor, arguing that Paul adapted Anatolian notions to serve his own polemic. The expression referred to particular works of the law practised by his opponents and covered (different) practices in Judaism and paganism. According to Brian S. Rosner 171 161 M. Bachmann, “Keil oder Mikroskop? Zur jüngeren Diskussion um den Ausdruck ‘Werke des Gesetzes’”, in: M. Bachmann and J. Woyke (eds.), Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive: Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.182, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 69–134. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157299-9 Also available in: M. Bachmann, Von Paulus zur Apokalypse – und weiter: Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Neuen Testament (samt englischsprachigen Summaries) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 91, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 91–160. (2013), Paul continually treats the law in three ways in his letters: he repudiates, replaces and reappropriates it. This also happens in Galatians, in which case he repudiates it in 3:23–25 and 5:18, replaces it in 2:5, 14, 3:23–25, 5:18 and 6:2 and reappropriates it in 4:21–31 (as prophecy) and 5:14 (as wisdom). Todd Scacewater 172 162 W.D. Barrick, “The New Perspective and ‘Works of the Law’ (Gal 2:16 and Rom 3:20)”, The Master’s Seminary Journal 16:2 (2005), pp. 277‑292. (2013) disagrees with the way in which proponents of the New Perspective on Paul interpret the expression “works of the law”. According to Scacewater, it is clear from this pericope that it refers to the commandments of the law which were performed in order to be justified. Gaspar de Souza 173 163 J.C.R. de Roo, “Works of the Law” at Qumran and in Paul (New Testament Monographs 13, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007). (2014) also believes that the traditional interpretation of the term “works of the law” is correct and motivates this by means of a rhetorical and semantic interpretation of vv. 15–21. Gary E. Gilthvedt 174 164 P.L. Owen, “The ‘Works of the Law’ in Romans and Galatians: A New Defense of the Subjective Genitive”, Journal of Biblical Literature 126:3 (2007), pp. 553–577. https://doi.org/10.2307/27638452 (2016) evaluates the level of continuity between the law and Paul’s gospel by interpreting v. 19 in the light of the letter as a whole. Gilthvedt argues that the law primarily bestows curse and death, that Christ’s death was caused by the power of the law and that, according to v. 19, believers died with him on the cross. Le Chih Hsieh 175 165 M. Bachmann, “Was für Praktiken? Zur jüngsten Diskussion um die ἔργα νόμου”, New Testament Studies 55:1 (2009), pp. 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868850900006X Also available in: M. Bachmann, Von Paulus zur Apokalypse – und weiter: Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Neuen Testament (samt englischsprachigen Summaries) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 91, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 207–226. (2018) interprets the genitive in “works of the law” as a subjective genitive and offers a new interpretation of the expression: it refers to the functions of the law or what the law characteristically does.

5.8 Soteriology

General studies According to Patrick Mulemi 176 166 M. Bachmann, “Bemerkungen zur Auslegung zweier Genitivverbindungen des Galaterbriefs: ‘Werke des Gesetzes’ (Gal 2,16 u.ö.) und ‘Israel Gottes’ (Gal 6,16)”, in: M. Bachmann and B. Kollmann (eds.), Umstrittener Galaterbrief: Studien zur Situierung und Theologie des Paulus-Schreibens (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 106, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010), pp. 95–118. Also available in: M. Bachmann, Von Paulus zur Apokalypse – und weiter: Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Neuen Testament (samt englischsprachigen Summaries) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 91, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 277–295. (2003), vv. 15–16 and 5:5–6 do not contradict each other. Both indicate that justification comes through faith and not through the law. Works thus are to be performed in faith working through love. Wiard Popkes 177 167 M.D. Nanos, “The Myth of the ‘Law-Free’ Paul Standing between Christians and Jews”, Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 4:1 (2009), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.6017/scjr.v4i1.1511 (2005) compares justification in vv. 15–21 and James 2:21–25 and finds that there are remarkable parallels between the two, most importantly the fact that both texts depict justification primarily in terms of personal relationships. Martinus C. de Boer 178 168 D. Hunn, “Christ versus the Law: Issues in Galatians 2:17–18”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72:3 (2010), pp. 537–555. (2005) outlines the way in which Paul interpreted a tradition of justification in 2:15–21: he dissociated justification from the “works of the law” and associated it fully with the faith of Jesus Christ. Scott Shauf 179 169 P.W. Yahya, “Sebuah Kritik terhadap Pandangan James D.G. Dunn tentang ‘Melakukan Hukum Taurat’ dalam Galatia 2:16”, Veritas: Jurnal Teologi dan Pelayanan 14:1 (2013), pp. 107–126. https://doi.org/10.36421/veritas.v14i1.270 (2006) argues that v. 20 forms part of Paul’s argument on justification in vv. 15–21. It concludes Paul’s response to the objection in v. 17 and provides the basis for Paul’s claim about the real source of righteousness in v. 21. Jae Won Lee 180 170 B.F. Parker, “‘Works of the Law’ and the Jewish Settlement in Asia Minor”, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 9 (2013), pp. 42–96. (2007) offers an emancipatory reading of justification in Galatians 1 and 2: Paul was primarily concerned about equal relations between Gentiles and Jews within the Messianic community and the fact that justification brought about a new relationship between them in Christ. In a discussion of vv. 15–21, Peter G. Kirchschläger 181 171 B.S. Rosner, Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 31, Downers Grove IL/Nottingham: IVP Academic, 2013). (2013) points out that there are similarities between the notions of justification through the law and through faith, such as that love plays a role in both instances. However, in the case of justification through faith one should also think of a “pneumatic conversion” (“pneumatische Umsetzung” 182 172 T. Scacewater, “Galatians 2:11–21 and the Interpretive Context of ‘Works of the Law’”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56:2 (2013), pp. 307–323. ). In a contribution on the language of justification in 2:15–21 (and Romans 1:16–3:31), Stefano Romanello 183 173 G. de Souza, “Novamente as Obras da Lei: Gálatas 2.16”, Fides Reformata 19:2 (2014), pp. 77–93. (2014) highlights the emphasis on the gratuitous nature of God’s actions on behalf of humankind, noting that Paul’s language in this regard is theological (focusing on God). In order to grasp how he denotes the way in which believers receive justification one has to study other Pauline notions, such as participation, union and walking in the Spirit. Michael Bachmann 184 174 G.E. Gilthvedt, Dying and Deliverance: Searching Paul’s Law – Gospel Tension (Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016). (2015) raises the question of whether “faith of Christ” and “works of the law” in v. 16 should be seen as being on two different levels or on the same level. Bachmann argues that they should be taken as being on the same level. Both may be characterised as happening extra nos and both are linked to God but being justified has its “place” in Christ, since one cannot be justified through the law. Michael J. Gorman 185 175 L.C. Hsieh, “The Works of the Law as the Functions of Law”, Sino-Christian Studies 25 (2018), pp. 7–45. (2017) offers a theological interpretation of vv. 15–21, showing that Paul had a thick and robust view of justification. He viewed it as something participatory, transforming humans. This can expand modern theological horizons and even break down theological differences. Jens-Christian Maschmeier 186 176 P. Mulemi, “A Synopsis of the Pauline Theology on Justification: Galatians 2:15–16 and 5:5–6”, Hekima Review 30 (2003), pp. 61–67. (2017) believes that the typical Lutheran view of justification marginalises the role of humans as agents but that the notion of sola gratia and the idea of human agency go well together. Amongst others, Maschmeier illustrates this by means of an analysis of vv. 14–21. J. Andrew Cohan 187 177 W. Popkes, “Two Interpretations of ‘Justification’ in the New Testament: Reflections on Galatians 2:15–21 and James 2:21–25”, Studia Theologica 59:2 (2005), pp. 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393380500339560 (2018) challenges the commonly accepted view that v. 17 is not directly related to vv. 19–20 by drawing attention to Calvin’s interpretation of these verses. Calvin read v. 20 as referring not to Christ’s indwelling in believers, but to God’s acceptance of them in Christ. Thus, Cowan proposes that vv. 19–20 should be seen as a reference to the justifying relationship mentioned in v. 17. According to Christina Eschner 188 178 M.C. de Boer, “Paul’s Use and Interpretation of a Justification Tradition in Galatians 2.15–21”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28:2 (2005), pp. 189–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X05060096 (2019), it is not correct to explain Paul’s view of Christ’s death in v. 20 against the background of atonement. It should rather be interpreted in terms of the Greek notion of apotropaic death, the giving of oneself for the fatherland or for another person. Logan Williams 189 179 S. Shauf, “Galatians 2.20 in Context”, New Testament Studies 52:1 (2006), pp. 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688506000051 (2019) disagrees with scholars who interpret v. 20 (and 1:4) as merely referring to Christ’s death as a self-sacrifice, i.e., as a giving up his own interests. Williams thinks that Christ is here rather depicted as giving himself (as a gift). Thus, Christ’s death is also viewed as bringing about a mutual relationship in which he received people into a relationship with him. Andrew Hollingsworth 190 180 J.W. Lee, “Justification of Difference in Galatians”, in: R.L. Brawley (ed.), Character Ethics and the New Testament: Moral Dimensions of Scripture (2020) understands justification as a declaration by God that one is righteous. This is illuminated by means of speech act theory and illustrated by 2:15–16 and other Pauline texts. The expression “faith of Christ” Several studies have treated this exegetical dilemma: R. Barry Matlock 191

(Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox/London, 2007), pp. 191–208.

(2000) attempts to detheologise the “faith of Christ” debate by approaching the matter from a lexical semantic perspective. According to Matlock, from such a perspective the objective interpretation is to be preferred. Denis R. Lindsay 192 181 P.G. Kirchschläger, “Gesetz und Glaube in Gal 2,15–21”, Bibel und Liturgie 86:3 (2013), pp. 223–229. (2000) draws attention to three parallel expressions in 2:16–3:5: “faith of Christ”, “works of the law” and “hearing of faith”. Lindsay is of the opinion that the genitive should be interpreted in all three instances as an attributive genitive/genitive of quality, which means that “faith of Christ” should be interpreted as faith pertaining solely to Christ, faith that is consistent with Christ. Moisés Silva 193 182 Op. cit., p. 299. (Emphasis Kirchschläger.) (2004) maintains that if one wishes to explain Paul’s view of justification in Galatians, one cannot escape the fact that there is a contrast between “works of the law” and faith in 2:15–3:25. Silva offers several arguments as to why one cannot restrict “works of the law” to identity markers and why it is best to understand the expression “faith of Christ” as an objective genitive. Paul Ellingworth 194 183 S. Romanello, “Fede e operare credente: Le Articolazioni della Riflessione Paolina”, Teología 39:3 (2014), pp. 344–375. (2005) argues that the structure of v. 16 serves as an indication that Paul is referring to faith in Christ. On the basis of the insight that ἀκοῆς πίστεως (“hearing of faith”) in 3:2 and 5 refers to the faith of the Galatians, Debbie Hunn 195 184 M. Bachmann, “Zwei Ebenen oder eher ein Niveau? Zur Entgegensetzung innerhalb von Gal 2,16a”, Biblische Zeitschrift 59:1 (2015), pp. 112–116. (2006) argues that “faith in Christ” in v. 16 refers to human faith in Christ. Roy A. Harrisville III 196 185 M.J. Gorman, “Reading Gal 2:15–21 Theologically: Beyond Old and New, Beyond West and East”, in: A. Despotis (ed.), Participation, Justification, and Conversion: Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Paul and the Debate between “Old and New Perspectives on Paul” (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.442, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), pp. 321–354. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-155453-7 Adapted version: M.J. Gorman, Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2019), pp. 115–149. In the 2019 edition, Gorman offers the following “working definition” of justification: “Justification/righteousification is God’s gracious act of delivering people from the power of Sin and restoring them to a right covenant relationship with himself, the (2006) draws attention to evidence from pre-Christian Greek authors in whose writings there is an abundance of evidence that it would have been quite normal to interpret “faith of Christ” as an objective genitive and that it would have been regarded as good Greek. Arthur A. Just Jr. 197

and resurrection, giving them new life and incorporating them into the righteous/just people of God who share in Gods righteousness/justice, both Jews and gentiles, ‘in’ the Messiah, as by God’s grace they participate in the Messiah’s death and resurrection, dying to their past lives and rising to lives of righteousness/justice marked by faithfulness to God and love for others – resurrectional cruciformity.” (p. 144.) righteous/just God, through the Messiah’s faithful, loving death

(2006) agrees with Richard Hays that “faith of Christ” refers to Christ’s faithful death on behalf of humans and discusses the implications that such a choice has for Lutheran theology. One of the arguments used against an objective interpretation of the expression “faith of Christ” is that it creates redundancy. R. Barry Matlock 198 186 J.-C. Maschmeier, “Justification and Ethics: Theological Consequences of a New Perspective on Paul”, Theological Review 38:1 (2017), pp. 35–53. See also the response by J.B. Awwad, “A Response to ‘Justification and Ethics’”, Theological Review 38:1 (2017), pp. 54–64. (2007) evaluates this argument critically by looking at v. 16, 3:22, Romans 3:22 and Philippians 3:9 and finds that it is not convincing. An objective interpretation is thus to be preferred. In a detailed study of the expression “phrase of Christ” in Paul’s letters, Karl Friedrich Ulrichs 199 187 J.A. Cowan, “The Legal Significance of Christ’s Risen Life: Union with Christ and Justification in Galatians 2.17–20”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40:4 (2018), pp. 453–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x18767078 Jan Lambrecht does not agree with this proposal. See J. Lambrecht, Intended Sense of Scripture: Fifty Brief Exegetical Notes (2019–2020) (Beau Basin: Scholars’ Press, 2020), pp. 269–273. (2007) argues that the issue is more complex than merely choosing between an objective and subjective genitive. By means of the phrase Paul succeeded in integrating various models of justification, the notion of participation in Christ and the perspective that the Spirit was a gift from God. David L. Stubbs 200 188 C. Eschner, “‘Der mich geliebt und sich selbst “für” mich hingegeben hat’ (Gal 2,20): Die griechische Konzeption des Unheil abwendenden Sterbens als zentrale Heilskategorie des Galaterbriefes”, in: D.S. du Toit, C. Gerber and C. Zimmermann (eds.), Sōtēria: Salvation in Early Christianity and Antiquity: Festschrift in Honour of Cilliers Breytenbach on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Novum Testamentum Supplements 175, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2019), pp. 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004396883_017 (2008) explains the two patterns of soteriology underlying the subjective and objective interpretations of the expression “faith of Christ” and opts for the subjective interpretation, situating it within a broader view of faith as faithfulness and an emphasis on participation in Christ. Jae Hyun Lee 201 189 L. Williams, “Giving the Self through Death: A Crucified Christ as Gift in Galatians”, in: K. Kilby and R. Davies (eds.), Suffering and the Christian (2008) maintains that Paul wishes to contrast the human act of faith and the works of the law in v. 16 and 3:6. One thus cannot accept the argument that Hays offers for the subjective genitive (that Paul wishes to contrast human and divine action). Debbie Hunn 202

(London/New York NY: T & T Clark, 2019), pp. 23–32. Life https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567687265.0006

(2009) offers a thorough overview of the debate in scholarship on the faithfulness of Christ since the time of Johannes Hauβleiter and Gerhard Kittel, pointing out that it is difficult to make a choice since both the subjective and objective interpretations of the expression fit the context. Ardel B. Caneday 203 190 A. Hollingsworth, “Soteriological Speech Acts: Justification as Divine Performative”, Churchman 134:1 (2020), pp. 49–69. (2009) highlights the importance of the faithfulness of Christ as theme in Galatians, in particular in terms of the polarity found in the letter between “works of the law” and “faith of Christ”. The faithfulness of Christ achieved what the law could not. R. Barry Matlock 204 191 R.B. Matlock, “Detheologizing the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate: Cautionary Remarks from a Lexical Semantic Perspective”, Novum Testamentum 42:1 (2000), pp. 1–23. (2009) offers arguments for an objective interpretation of the expression, amongst others the parallel between “faith of Christ” and “works of the law”. Mark A. Seifrid 205 192 D.R. Lindsay, “Works of Law, Hearing of Faith and πίστις Χριστοῦ in Galatians 2:16–3:5”, Stone-Campbell Journal 3:1 (2000), pp. 79–88. (2009) is of the opinion that merely choosing between a subjective and an objective interpretation of the expression does not really solve the problem and that it should thus rather be interpreted as referring to Christ as both the author and the source of one’s faith. Preston M. Sprinkle 206 193 M. Silva, “Faith versus Works of Law in Galatians”, in: D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume II: The Paradoxes of Paul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.181, Tübingen/Grand Rapids MI: Mohr Siebeck/Baker Academic, 2004), pp. 217–248. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157089-6 (2009) also opts for a third alternative. The expression refers to “Christ-faith”, i.e., it is a reference to the gospel regarding the eschatological act that God performed in Christ. Francis Watson 207 194 P. Ellingworth, “A Note on Galatians 2.16”, Bible Translator 56:2 (2005), pp. 109–110. (2009) thinks that Paul’s formulation “faith of Christ” was based on Habakkuk 2:4, which implies that he referred to faith in the saving acts of God. In a study of the expression “faith of Christ” in Paul’s letters, Eung-Bong Lee 208 195 D. Hunn, “πίστις Χριστοῦ in Galatians 2:16: Clarification from 3:1–6”, Tyndale Bulletin 57:1 (2006), pp. 23–33. https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.29203 (2009) rejects the arguments for the objective interpretation of the expression and suggests that it refers to Christ as the one creating faith in believers. Roy A. Harrisville III 209 196 R.A. Harrisville III, “Before πίστις Χριστοῦ: The Objective Genitive as Good Greek”, Novum Testamentum 48:4 (2006), pp. 353–358. (2010) suspects supporters of the New Perspective of assuming that faith is not a gift of God and maintains that when Paul contrasts “hearing of faith” and “works of the law” he is contrasting divine gift and human work, not two types of human work. Accordingly, “faith of Christ” refers to faith in Christ. Matthew C. Easter 210 197 A.A. Just Jr., “The Faith of Christ: A Lutheran Appropriation of Richard Hays’s Proposal”, Concordia Theological Quarterly 70:1 (2006), pp. 3–15. (2010) offers an overview of the most important arguments used in the “faith of Christ” debate. Easter points out that the choices that exegetes make are mostly based on the way in which they understand broader issues in Pauline theology and that this broader framework is thus the true setting of the debate. Gab Jong Choi 211 198 R.B. Matlock, “The Rhetoric of πίστις in Paul: Galatians 2.16, 3.22, Romans 3.22, and Philippians 3.9”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30:2 (2007), pp. 173–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X07084775 (2011) offers a contextual investigation of 2:15–21, 3:1–29 and 5:2–6, arguing that the expression “faith of Christ” indicates the way in which God’s righteousness is attained and not how God reveals it. The expression should thus be taken in an objective sense. In an investigation of the expression “faith of Christ” in Galatians, as well as the 13 occurrences of “faith” in Galatians 3, Hyoung Keun Kim 212 199 K.F. Ulrichs, Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma πίστις Χριστοῦ und zum paulinischen Verständnis von Glaube und Rechtfertigung (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.227, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151570-5 (2012) chooses for not separating the subjective and objective interpretations. They should be integrated so that one can gain a holistic view of justification. According to Debbie Hunn 213 200 D.L. Stubbs, “The Shape of Soteriology and the pistis Christou Debate”, Scottish Journal of Theology 61:2 (2008), pp. 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003693060800329X (2012), the exegetical discussion on the interpretation of “faith of Christ” should be guided by the fact that Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4 in 3:11. This makes the objective interpretation more likely. Benjamin Schliesser 214 201 J.H. Lee, “Against Richard B. Hays’s ‘Faith of Jesus Christ’”, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 5 (2008), pp. 51–80. (2015) points out that contemporary scholarship is wrongly under the impression that Johannes Hausβleiter was the first scholar suggesting a subjective interpretation of the expression “faith of Christ” in 1891 but that this is not true, since such an interpretation had already been considered from the 1820s onwards. Byeng-Hee Jeon 215 202 D. Hunn, “Debating the Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Twentieth-Century Scholarship”, in: M.F. Bird and P. Sprinkle (eds.), The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Milton Keynes/Peabody MA: Paternoster/Hendrickson, 2009), pp. 15–32. (2016) offers several arguments to support an objective interpretation of the expression “faith of Christ” in v. 16: the context of the argument, the reference to the Galatians’ experience of the Spirit in the next pericope, and the quotations from the Hebrew Bible that Paul uses. Chris Kugler 216 203 A.B. Caneday, “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a Theme in Paul’s Theology in Galatians”, in: M.F. Bird and P. Sprinkle (eds.), The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Milton Keynes/Peabody MA: Paternoster/Hendrickson, 2009), pp. 185–205. (2016) offers a survey of the state of the debate on the expression “faith of Christ” and the arguments that are used to support the two options. Kugler is of the opinion that the subjective interpretation currently has the most supporters. Suzan J.M. Sierksma-Agteres 217 204 R.B. Matlock, “Saving Faith: The Rhetoric and Semantics of πίστις in Paul”, in: M.F. Bird and P. Sprinkle (eds.), The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Milton Keynes/Peabody MA: Paternoster/Hendrickson, 2009), pp. 73–90. (2016) supports the option of interpreting Paul’s use of the expression “faith of Christ” as a purposeful ambiguity by investigating Paul’s imitation language against the background of the way in which imitation functioned in the Hellenistic-Roman world, in particular in philosophical training. This suggests that one should interpret the expression as shorthand for believers mimetically moving in faith/faithfulness through Christ towards God. According to David J. Downs and Benjamin J. Lappenga 218 205 M.A. Seifrid, “The Faith of Christ”, in: M.F. Bird and P. Sprinkle (eds.), The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Milton Keynes/Peabody MA: Paternoster/Hendrickson, 2009), pp. 129–147. (2019), proponents on both sides in the “faith of Christ” debate tend to ignore the role of the Risen Christ and they thus argue that when Paul refers to the “faithfulness” of Christ, he has the faithfulness of the Risen Christ in mind. Sang Mok Lee 219 206 P.M. Sprinkle, “πίστις Χριστοῦ as an Eschatological Event”, in: M.F. Bird and P.M. Sprinkle (eds.), The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Milton Keynes/Peabody MA: Paternoster/Hendrickson, 2009), pp. 165–184. (2019) maintains that Paul deliberately used the expression “faith of Christ” ambiguously in order to criticise Roman imperial cult and ideology by opposing Christ’s faithfulness to that of the emperor, thus encouraging believers to live in the right relationship to Christ. Kevin Grasso 220 207 F. Watson, “By Faith (of Christ): An Exegetical Dilemma and Its Scriptural Solution”, in: M.F. Bird and P. Sprinkle (eds.), The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Milton Keynes/Peabody MA: Paternoster/Hendrickson, 2009), pp. 147–164. (2020) argues in favour of a third view in the “faith of Christ” debate. Research in theoretical linguistics shows that the expression is best translated as “Christ-faith” with “faith” referring to a belief-system and “Christ” qualifying the system.

5.9 Ecclesiology

M.A. Botma, J.H. Koekemoer and A.G. van Aarde 221 208 E.-B. Lee, “A Study of pistis Christou in Paul’s Letters”, 신약논단 16:2 (2009), pp. 561–588. (2000) think that the formula “in Christ” is the point of departure of Pauline ecclesiology. Accordingly, an unacceptable diversity is reflected in this pericope, since it is clear that the Sache Jesu was interpreted in diverse ways in Antioch, thus causing conflict between various Christian groups. According to Andrea J. Mayer-Haas 222 209 R.A. Harrisville III, “πίστις Χριστοῦ and the New Perspective on Paul”, Logia 19:2 (2010), pp. 19–28. (2001), the Antioch incident was caused by two opposing models of intra-church unity: a model based on covenant theology, presupposing the separation of Israel from other peoples, and a model based on the notion of a new universal fellowship brought about by Christ’s death (the view represented by Paul). Although Paul’s view was rejected by the majority at Antioch, in the long run it prevailed (after the demise of Jewish Christianity). Chad Harrington 223 210 M.C. Easter, “The pistis Christou Debate: Main Arguments and Responses in Summary”, Currents in Biblical Research 9:1 (2010), pp. 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993X09360725 (2010) is of the opinion that Paul’s rhetoric in v. 16 has a sociological aim, namely, to move the church to unity. Justification is thus not only about forensic matters, but also about ecclesiological matters, about church unity. In a study of Paul’s letters as letters of worship, John Paul Heil 224 211 G.J. Choi, “How To Interpret πίστις Χριστοῦ: With a Contextual Study of ‘Faith’ and ‘Righteousness’ in Galatians 2:15–21, 3:1–29 and 5:2–6”, 신약연구 10:4 (2011), pp. 911–940. (2011) highlights the following aspects of ritual worship in the letter: worship in the letter opening (1:1–5), the link between the eucharist and worship in the Antioch incident (2:11–21), the effect of baptism on ethical worship (3:26–29, worked out in 4:1–11 and 5:16–6:10), and worship in the letter closing (6:11–18). In a contribution on the relationship between the truth of the gospel and the unity of the church in the Pauline letters (amongst others, 2:5 and 14) and the Johannine writings, Hans-Christian Kammler 225 212 H.K. Kim, “‘Faith of Christ’ and ‘Faith in Christ’: In a Zero-Sum or Win-Win Relationship? A Re-Consideration of pistis Christou in Galatians”, 신약연구 11:4 (2012), pp. 890–929. https://doi.org/10.24229/kents.2012.11.4.005 For a response, see: G.-J. Choi, “Again πίστις Χριστοῦ: A Rejoinder of Keun Hyung Kim’s ‘Faith of Christ’ and ‘Faith in Christ’: In a Zero-Sum Relationship or Win-Win Relationship? A Re-Consideration of pistis Christou in Galatians”, 신약연구 12:2 (2013), pp. 302–333. https://doi.org/10.24229/kents.2013.13.2.005 (2014) shows that “truth” is understood in a Christological sense and that it is generally accepted that the truth of the gospel constitutes unity in the church. Kammler also works out the implications of this insight for current oecumenical dialogues. One of the passages that Jae Won Lee 226 213 D. Hunn, “Pistis Christou in Galatians: The Connection to Habakkuk 2:4”, Tyndale Bulletin 63:1 (2012), pp. 75–91. (2015) uses to explain the politics of difference in Paul is vv. 11–21. For Lee, this pericope is theologically the key passage in the letter and it is clear that justification by faith was primarily concerned with equal relations between Jewish and Gentile believers. Céline Rohmer 227 214 B. Schliesser, “‘Exegetical Amnesia’ and ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ: The ‘Faith of Christ’ in Nineteenth-Century Pauline Scholarship”, The Journal of Theological Studies 66:1 (2015), pp. 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flv008 (2019) is of the view that although the writers of the New Testament do not know the notion of synodality (literally, “having a common way”) their writings show what it means to be on a journey with Christ, an experience giving rise to true synodal events. The plurality of voices in this regard (amongst others, Galatians 2) give us a pragmatic freedom in Christ regarding synodal matters in our time.

5.10 Christian existence and spirituality

Scot McKnight 228 215 B.-H. Jeon, “Paul’s Argument About Faith in Galatians 2:16”, 신약연구 15:3 (2016), pp. 564–592. (2000) investigates the identity of the “I” depicted as dying in v. 20. McKnight rejects two views, a universalistic view (the “I” is everybody) and an autobiographical view (the “I” is Paul) and argues for understanding it as referring to the “I’s” of Paul and Peter as Jewish believers. According to Piotr Kasiłowski 229 216 C. Kugler, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ: The Current State of Play and the Key Arguments”, Currents in Biblical Research 14:2 (2016), pp. 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993X14549917 (2001), the essence of Christian existence as depicted in vv. 16 and 19–20 may be summarised as follows: justification as a gift of God, Christ as the foundation of new life, a breaking with the law and the death of one’s “I”. Hans-Martin Barth 230 217 S.J.M. Sierksma-Agteres, “Imitation in Faith: Enacting Paul’s Ambiguous pistis Christou Formulations on a Greco-Roman Stage”, International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 77:3 (2016), pp. 119–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/21692327.2016.1231076 (2002) compares the Christian notion of personal identity (as reflected in v. 20) and the Buddhist notion of “non-self”. Whereas Buddhism invites people to find “emptiness” and not be person-centred anymore, v. 20 refers to a grateful transformation of the “I” to a true “I” established by Christ. Friederike Nüssel 231 218 D.J. Downs and B.J. Lappenga, The Faithfulness of the Risen Christ: Pistis and the Exalted Lord in the Pauline Letters (Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2019). (2002) interprets Christian self-conception in v. 20 on the basis of Luther’s interpretation of the verse and a Lutheran Christology. The new self-understanding of the believer depicted here is one in which the “I” is not dissolved through fellowship with Christ but in which the “I” differs from the old “I” outside of Christ. Ladislav Tichý 232 219 S.M. Lee, “Christ’s πίστις vs. Caesar’s fides: πίστις Χριστοῦ in Galatians and the Roman Imperial Cult”, The Expository Times 130:6 (2019), pp. 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014524618813282 (2004) argues that Paul’s statement in v. 20a that Christ is in him, is one of the ways in which the close relationship between baptised believers and Christ is expressed by Paul. This expression also has a personal dimension in that Paul relies on his own experience of the presence of Christ. According to Pedro Mendoza Magallón 233 220 K. Grasso, “A Linguistic Analysis of πίστις Χριστοῦ: The Case for the Third View”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43:1 (2020), pp. 108–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x20949385 (2005), “being crucified with Christ” (a notion found only in this pericope and in Romans 6:5–11) is the centre of Paul’s message and depicts the fundamental situation of believers. They have to identify fully with Christ’s loving redemption and can no longer continue to live in sin. Roberto Lopes de Souza 234 221 M.A. Botma, J.H. Koekemoer and A.G. van Aarde, “Onaanvaarbare Verskeidenheid in Galasiërs: ἐκκλησία en συναγωγή”, HTS Teologiese Studies 56:2/3 (2000), pp. 743–777. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v56i2/3.1772 (2008) investigates Paul’s mysticism in Galatians and draws attention to Paul’s gospel, his personal detachment as a result of having been crucified with Christ (2:19 and 6:14) and his intimate union with Christ. This mysticism gave rise to an objective loving of other believers in the daily life of the Christian community and table-fellowship without any distinction. Rollin A. Ramsaran 235 222 A.J. Mayer-Haas, “Identitätsbewahrung, kirchliche Einheit und die ‘Wahrheit des Evangeliums’: Der sogenannte ‘antiochenische Zwischenfall’ im Spiegel von Gal 2,11–21”, in: J. Eckert, M. Schmidl and H. Steichele (eds.), Pneuma und Gemeinde: Christsein in der Tradition des Paulus und Johannes: Festschrift für Josef Hainz zum 65. Geburtstag (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2001), pp. 123–148. (2012) discusses “in Christ” and “Christ in” as expressions of religious experience in Galatians and finds that interior religious experience plays an important role in the letter, in particular in the case of “Christ in” texts such as 1:16 and 2:20. Ramsaran also highlights the link between “Christ in” texts and “in Christ” texts, language of “belonging” and the presence of the Spirit – all regarded as giving rise to ethical actions. D. Francois Tolmie 236 223 C. Harrington, “Justification by the Faithfulness of Jesus Christ”, The Asbury Journal 65:2 (2010), pp. 7–25. (2013) identifies three core elements of the spiritual activity of discernment (reflection, choice and the relationship to God) and discusses several references to discernment in Galatians: 2:1–10, 2:11–21, 3:1–5 and 5:13–6:10. Boris Repschinski 237 224 J.P. Heil, The Letters of Paul as Rituals of Worship (Eugene OR: Cascade, 2011), pp. 64–74. (2013) compares the ways in which Paul and Ignatius of Loyola reflected on events in their life as an opportunity to recognise the presence of God. Both of them emphasise God’s will without offering systematic autobiographies or memoires. There are also differences. For example, for Paul, his own life was a proof of the truth of the gospel and his experiences thus had argumentative value (as can be seen in 1:10–2:14) – something that does not happen in the case of Ignatius. According to Daniel Marguerat 238 225 H.-C. Kammler, “Die Wahrheit des Evangeliums und die Einheit der Kirche: Exegetische Überlegungen zu ihrem sachlichen Verhältnis”, Kerygma und Dogma 60:2 (2014), pp. 126–152. https://doi.org/10.13109/kedo.2014.60.2.126 (2013), Paul may be described as a mystic, but he did not practise an evasive type of spirituality or dismiss the burdens of life. His Christic mysticism was motivated by his theological interpretation of the cross, implying a fundamental incarnation of God. In the case of Galatians, Marguerat considers 1:15b–16 and 2:19–20. One of the passages from Galatians that Grant Macaskill 239 226 J.W. Lee, Paul and the Politics of Difference: A Contextual Study of the Jewish-Gentile Difference in Galatians and Romans (Cambridge: James Clarke & Pickwick Publications, 2015), pp. 107–135. (2013) investigates in a study of the notion of union with Christ in the New Testament is vv. 19–20. In this instance, Macaskill highlights the total transformation of identity that is depicted here and suggests that this idea might have been influenced by a reflection on the sacraments. Macaskill also stresses the link between the presence of the Spirit and the Risen Christ in this case. Ulrich H.J. Körtner 240 227 C. Rohmer, “De la tradition synodale à l’événement synodal ou comment la Bible interroge la pratique”, Recherches de Science Religieuse 107:2 (2019), pp. 209–224. https://doi.org/10.3917/rsr.192.0207 (2020) works out the implications of v. 20 for Christian self-liberation. By accepting sinners, Christ liberates them from themselves so that they can accept themselves. This implies that they are dialectically liberated from themselves, but also towards themselves. Thomas McCall 241 228 S. McKnight, “The Ego and ‘I’: Galatians 2:19 in New Perspective”, Word & World 20:3 (2000), pp. 272–280. (2020) discusses various interpretations of Paul’s statement that he has been co-crucified with Christ (v. 19) but opts for Chrysostom’s interpretation: through baptism believers are unified with Christ and then live in such a way that their members are spiritually mortified.

5.11 Ethics

In a discussion of the concept “truth of the gospel” in vv. 5 and 14, Moisés Silva 242 229 P. Kasiłowski, “Życie Chrześcijanina (Ga 2,16.19–20)”, Studia Bobolanum 1:1 (2001), pp. 93–116. (2000) highlights the importance of obedience. It is important to understand the teaching about Gentile freedom, but this also implies the responsibility to act accordingly. Larry W. Hurtado 243 230 H.-M. Barth, “‘Ich lebe, aber nicht mehr ich...’: Christlicher Glaube und personale Identität”, Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 44:2 (2002), pp. 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1515/nzst.2002.010 (2004) stresses the ways in which New Testament writers regard Jesus’ death as paradigmatic and as criterion for the daily life of believers. In Galatians, Hurtado draws attention to 2:19–20, 5:24–25 and 6:13–14 and 17. James A. Kelhoffer 244 231 F. Nüssel, “‘Ich lebe, doch nun nicht ich, sondern Christus lebt in mir’ (Gal 2,20a): Dogmatische Überlegungen zur Rede vom ‘Sein in Christus’”, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 99:4 (2002), pp. 480-502. (2007) responds critically to the remarks of William V. Harris 245 232 L. Tichý, “Christ in Paul: The Apostle Paul’s Relation to Christ Viewed through Gal. 2.20a”, in: J. Mrázek and J. Roskovec (eds.), Testimony & Interpretation: Early Christology in Its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu: Studies in Honor of Petr Pokorný (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Studies 272, London/New York NY: T & T Clark, 2004), pp. 40–48. about management of anger in the Pauline letters. Amongst others, Kelhoffer argues that the anger that Paul expressed toward Peter in Antioch was not consistent with Paul’s own expectations of others but that he probably would have regarded his anger as justified. Derek Woodard-Lehman 246 233 P. Mendoza Magallón, Estar Crucificado Juntamente con Cristo: El Nuevo Status del Creyente en Cristo: Estudio Exegético-Teológico de Gal 2.15–21 y Rom 6.5–11 (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 122, Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2005). (2007) explores a dispersive universality not requiring others to be like us but by us identifying with them. This is linked to vv. 19–20 and 3:26–28 as follows: “[B]aptism identifies the baptisand with Christ, inaugurates the new life of Christ living within, and initiates ongoing identification with others. The politics of baptismal identification is performative peacemaking; a pneumasomatics of identity that is simultaneously a body politics and a politics of bodies.” 247 234 R.L. de Souza, “A Mística na Epístola aos Gálatas: ‘Já não Sou Eu Que Vivo, Mas é Cristo que Vive em Mim’”, Estudos Bíblicos 26:97 (2008), pp. 70–85. J. Ayodeji Adewuya 248 235 R.A. Ramsaran, “‘In Christ’ and ‘Christ in’ as Expressions of Religious Experience: Testing the Waters in Galatians”, in: C. Shantz and R.A. Werline (eds.), Experientia, Volume 2: Linking Text and Experience (SBL – Early Judaism and Its Literature 35, Atlanta GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), pp. 161–180. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt32bzkm.12 (2010) focuses on the link between crucifixion and sanctification in Galatians. On the basis of 2:19–20, 5:24 and 6:14, Adewuya argues that Paul uses the notion of crucifixion to describe what happens to believers when they convert. God’s new people are identified by the indwelling of the Spirit and the Spirit brings about sanctification in their lives – an event that is both immediate (as in 2:20) and on-going (as in 5:24). Michael Allen 249 236 D.F. Tolmie, “Discernment in the Letter to the Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 17 (2013), pp. 156–171. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v32i2S.12 (2013) offers a dogmatic exegesis of v. 20, showing that the order of the two statements (Christ lives for believers; by faith believers live in Christ) is explained very well by the theological frameworks of Christian liberty in the Lutheran tradition and the distinction between a covenant of grace and a covenant of works in the Reformed tradition. Sean Winter 250 237 B. Repschinski, “Lebensreflexion als Ort der Gotteserfahrung: Ignatius von Loyola und Paulus von Tarsus im Vergleich”, Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 135:2/3 (2013), pp. 230–251. (2019) is of the opinion that the positive statements that Paul makes about the law in 5:13–14 and 6:2 amidst his otherwise sharp criticism of the law in the letter can be explained by means of Louis Martin’s notion of the two voices of the law, something that Paul experienced himself and expressed in 2:19–21.

5.12 Eschatology

Taking J. Louis Martyn’s 251 238 D. Marguerat, “Paul the Mystic”, in: J. Krans, B.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, P.-B. Smit and A.W. Zwiep (eds.), Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer (Novum Testamentum Supplements 149, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013), pp. 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004250369_007 question “What time is it?” as cue, Chad Chambers 252 239 G. Macaskill, Union with Christ in the New Testament (New York NY/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 220–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684298.001.0001 (2015) investigates the presentation of time in 1:11–2:21. Chambers believes that Paul structures time metaphorically and that he thinks of time as multidirectional as well as multidimensional: “[T]ime is multidimensional, consisting of multiple pasts, presents, and futures with each linked to the revelatory nature of Christ’s coming into the world. God’s revelation of Christ is an event that happens within history but changes time.” 253 240 U.H.J. Körtner, “‘Nicht mehr ich’ (Gal 2,20): Erwägungen zum Begriff der Selbstbefreiung im Anschluss an Paulus”, in: M. Bauspieß, J.U. Beck and F. Portenhauser (eds.), Bestimmte Freiheit: Festschrift für Christof Landmesser zum 60. Geburtstag (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 64, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2020), pp. 291–308. Jan Lambrecht 254 241 T. McCall, “Crucified with Christ: The Ego and the Omega”, Journal of Analytic Theology 8 (2020), pp. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.12978/jat.2020-8.190718120211 (2017) disagrees with Chambers and prefers to describe Paul’s view of time not by means of opposing time metaphors (as Chambers does) but by focusing on the fact that God caused discontinuity in the continuity by means of a breakthrough in history. Chapter 6: Galatians 3:1–5

1. Introductory issues

1.1 Historical issues underlying the pericope

Eliezer Gonzalez 1 242 M. Silva, “The Truth of the Gospel: Paul’s Mission According to Galatians: In Honor of Peter T. O’Brien”, in: P. Bolt and M. Thompson (2013) wonders why there is silence about miracles of healing in the Pauline letters. From v. 5 Gonzalez draws the conclusion that miracles occurred in the churches in Galatians. According to Jennifer Eyl 2

The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission (Downers Grove IL: Apollos, 2000), pp. 51–61. (eds.),

(2019), divination and claims of having divine powers were an essential part of Paul’s ministry. One of the pieces of evidence that Eyle uses to prove the importance of such divinatory powers is v. 5.

1.2 Background

Scholars focused on two issues in this regard, the evil eye (the term βασκαίνω [“bewitch”]) and Christ’s public exhibition as crucified, both mentioned in v. 1. The evil eye Susan Eastman 3 243 L.W. Hurtado, “Jesus’ Death as Paradigmatic in the New Testament”, Scottish Journal of Theology 57:4 (2004), pp. 413–433. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003693060400033X (2001) explains Paul’s reference to the evil eye by means of the Hebrew Bible. Paul’s reference to the evil eye should be seen an intertextual echo to the curse mentioned in Deuteronomy 28:53–57, thus preparing for his depiction of the crucified Christ as the antidote to the curse brought by the law in the rest of Chapter 3 and the portrayal of the gospel as a free mother (in Chapter 4). According to John H. Elliott 4 244 J.A. Kelhoffer, “Suppressing Anger in Early Christianity: Examples from the Pauline Tradition”, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 47:3 (2007), pp. 307–325. Also available in: J.A. Kelhoffer, Conceptions of “Gospel” and Legitimacy in Early Christianity (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.324, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), pp. 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-152993-1 (2008), Paul’s opponents accused him of bearing the evil eye – a widespread belief in the ancient world – and Paul defended himself against this accusation in Galatians. In turn, he accused his opponents of using the evil eye in the congregations in Galatia. Jeremy W. Barrier 5 245 W.V. Harris, Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger Control in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge MA/London: Harvard University Press, 2001). (2020) believes that the Jews in Galatia regarded circumcision as a talisman protecting them from harm and that they viewed Paul as a witch bringing evil to their community. Paul’s defence was that baptism protected them from the evil eye, not circumcision. Christ crucified David L. Balch 6 246 D. Woodard-Lehman, “One in Christ Who Lives Within: Dispersive Universality and the Pneuma-Somatics of Identity”, The Bible & Critical Theory 3:3 (2007), pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2104/bc070039 (2003) focuses on the question of how people living in Graeco-Roman houses would have received Paul’s message of Christ crucified in v. 1 and investigates the ways in which the suffering of Isis/Io was portrayed in frescoes in Pompeii, Roman houses and in the Temple of Isis in Pompeii. Balch believes that this shows that the manner in which tragic art portrayed pathos would have served as a meaningful cultural context for understanding Paul’s message about Christ’s suffering. John Granger Cook 7 247 Op. cit., p. 1. (2012) discusses four artefacts from ancient Campania that may help one to understand crucifixion in Roman times better and to grasp how scandalous Paul’s gospel of the cross would have sounded to people from his time: a notice in Pompeii advertising the crucifixion of people at Cumae, the lex Puteolana regulating private and public crucifixions, the lex Cumana regulating crucifixion at Cumae and a graffito of a crucified person in a taberna in Puteoli. Steven Muir 8 248 J.A. Adewuya, “Paul, Crucifixion, and Sanctification in Galatians”, in: S.J. Land, R.D. Moore and J.C. Thomas (eds.), Passover, Pentecost and Parousia: Studies in Celebration of the Life and Ministry of R. Hollis Gause (Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 36, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2010), pp. 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004397125_008 (2014) explains Paul’s statement about the crucified Christ by referring to Roman rhetoric, street announcements, graffiti and the way in which crucifixions were conducted. All of these indicate that Paul wanted his audience to experience his preaching on Christ’s crucifixion in such a way that they would remember it. Nils Neumann 9 249 M. Allen, “‘It Is no Longer I Who Live’: Christ’s Faith and Christian Faith”, Journal of Reformed Theology 7:1 (2013), pp. 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1163/15697312-12341273 (2015) interprets Paul’s statement that Christ was publicly exhibited before the eyes of his readers in the light of a similar practice mentioned widely in ancient rhetorical handbooks. According to Neumann, in this instance, Paul refers to his earlier narration of the Damascus event to the readers through which they could participate in his visionary experience.

2. Linguistic, stylistic issues and translation issues

One of the issues that Moisés Silva 10 250 S. Winter, “Paul’s Ethics and Paul’s Experience: Law and Love in Galatians”, in: M. Zehnder and P. Wick (eds.), Biblical Ethics: Tensions between Justice and Mercy, Law and Love (Gorgias Biblical Studies 70, Piscataway NJ: Gorgias Press, 2019), pp. 251–270. https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463239466-012 (2001) discusses, is the semantic ambiguity in v. 4 (πάσχω may be understood as either “suffer” or “experience”). Silva opts for interpreting it as “experience”. Since one does not have enough information about the context and there is no indication elsewhere in the letter that the Galatians suffered, it is best to follow the principle of maximal redundancy. Paul A. Holloway 11 251 J.L. Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 33A, New York NY/London/Toronto/Sydney/Auckland: Doubleday, 1997), p. 23. (2001) discusses three enthymemes in Galatians (against the background of the way in which they functioned in the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods): 2:14, 3:3 and 4:16. Holloway regards the one in v. 3 as very elegant because of its brevity, the twofold contrast and the use of chiasm. John Anthony Dunne 12 252 C. Chambers, “‘Before I Was Born’: Time in Paul’s Autobiographical Reflections in Galatians 1 and 2”, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 5:2 (2015), pp. 257–269. https://doi.org/10.2307/jstudpaullett.5.2.0257 (2013) provides a history of interpretation of πάσχω (“suffer” or “experience”) in v. 4 and argues on the basis of lexical, thematical and contextual grounds that it is best interpreted as referring to suffering. Heidi Wendt 13 253 Op. cit., p. 268. (2016) offers a new interpretation of the term προεγράφη (“portray publicly”) that Paul uses in v. 1 to refer to his preaching in Galatia. Whereas scholars usually interpret it as meaning “proclaim” or “exhibit publicly”, Wendt thinks that it refers to the prophecies about Christ that Paul found in Jewish writings. One of the examples that Dan Nässelqvist 14 254 J. Lambrecht, In Search of Meaning: Collected Notes on the New Testament (2014–2017) (Balti: Scholars’ Press, 2017), pp. 434–438. (2016) uses to help translators in their choices about gender-inclusive language comes from this pericope (v. 5). Nässelqvist distinguishes between three types of gender-inclusive language (gender-accurate, gender-muted and radically inclusive language).

3. Wirkungsgeschichte

James A. Kelhoffer 15 1 E. Gonzalez, “Healing in the Pauline Epistles: Why the Silence?”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56:3 (2013), pp. 557–575. (2001) compares the ways in which Paul and Justin Martyr appeal to miracles to prove their authority. Whereas Justin Martyr normally refers to miracles to prove that the entire message of Christianity is true, Paul normally refers to them to defend his own authority. However, in this pericope, Paul notes that the miracles that the Galatians are experiencing at that stage are similar to what happened when he brought the gospel to them. Jussi Kalervo Koivisto 16 2 J. Eyl, Signs, Wonders, and Gifts: Divination in the Letters of Paul (New York NY: Oxford University Press, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190924652.001.0001 (2011) shows that Luther’s interpretation of the term fascinare (“bewitch”) in v. 1 was based on Biblical scholarship, folklore and perspectives of earlier commentators. Luther understood the term as referring to witchcraft (linked to the devil) and psychological and spiritual disturbances. Michael Morson 17 3 S. Eastman, “The Evil Eye and the Curse of the Law: Galatians 3.1 Revisited”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24:1 (2001), pp. 69–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0142064X0102400104 (2012) defends the interpretation of the expression “works of the law” (used in vv. 2 and 5) by Luther and Calvin as “good works” against criticism by the New Perspective. Morson finds Luther’s and Calvin’s interpretation of the expression exegetically good and pastorally useful. Todd S. Berzon 18 4 J.H. Elliott, “Paul, Galatians and the Evil Eye”, in: J.H. Neyrey and E.C. Stewart (eds.), The Social World of the New Testament: Insights and Models (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 2008), pp. 223–234. See also earlier: J.H. Elliott, “Paul, Galatians, and the Evil Eye”, Currents in Theology and Mission 17:4 (1990), pp. 262–273, and later: J.H. Elliott, Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World: Volume 3: The Bible (2016) discusses the way in which v. 1 was interpreted by Marius Victorinus, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, John Chrysostom and Jerome. According to Berzon, for these exegetes, communal harmony in their own times served as an indication to which extent Paul’s legacy was continued or not.

4. Interpretative approaches

4.1 Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures

Susan Eastman 19

(Eugene OR: Cascade, 2016), pp. 212–263. For a description of the methodological approach underlying this, see: J.H. Elliott, “Social-Scientific Criticism: Perspective, Process and Payoff: Evil Eye Accusation at Galatia as Illustration of the Method”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 67:1 (2011), pp. 1–10. and Related Sources https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v67i1.858

(2001) explains Paul’s reference to the evil eye by means of the Hebrew Bible. It should be seen an intertextual echo to the curse mentioned in Deuteronomy 28:53–57, thus preparing for Paul’s depiction of the crucified Christ as the antidote to the curse brought by the law in the rest of the chapter and the portrayal of the gospel as a free mother (in Chapter 4). William N. Wilder 20 5 J.W. Barrier, Witch Hunt in Galatia: Magic, Medicine, and Ritual and the Occasion of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Paul in Critical Contexts, Lanham MD/New York NY/London: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2020). (2017) interprets the expression “hearing of faith” (vv. 2 and 5) as an echo of Isaiah 53:1, meant as a warning to the Galatians that their obstinacy amidst miracles is similar to that of Israel.

4.2 Social-scientific/sociological approaches

According to Seung Moo Lee 21 6 D.L. Balch, “The Suffering of Isis/Io and Paul’s Portrait of Christ Crucified (Gal. 3:1): Frescoes in Pompeian and Roman Houses and in the Temple of Isis in Pompei”, The Journal of Religion 83:1 (2003), pp. 24–55. https://doi.org/10.1086/491222 (2012), in vv. 1–14, Paul stresses the Galatians’ experiences of the Spirit and the promise of the Spirit in order to resolve the conflict in the congregations and to let them return to his gospel. Aliou Cissé Niang 22 7 J.G. Cook, “Crucifixion as Spectacle in Roman Campania”, Novum Testamentum 54:1 (2012), pp. 68–100. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853611X589651 (2012) offers an interpretation of v. 1 as it may have been heard “under watchful imperial eyes”. Niang suggests that Paul’s vivid depiction of the crucified Jesus could have awakened memories in the readers of how they were dishonoured as “Others” by the Roman Empire. F. Manjewa M’bwangi 23 8 S. Muir, “Vivid Imagery in Galatians 3:1: Roman Rhetoric, Street Announcing, Graffiti, and Crucifixions”, Biblical Theology Bulletin 44:2 (2014), pp. 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146107914526523 (2020) uses social identity theory to show how Paul constructs a superordinate identity for his group of readers in 3:1–10, namely, a broad type of identity that include political, religious and economic facets.

4.3 Rhetorical approaches

Juan Luis Caballero 24 9 N. Neumann, “‘Jesus Christus vor Augen zeichnen’ (Gal 3,1): Die rhetorische Strategie des Paulus in Galatien”, in: C. Breytenbach (ed.), Paul’s Graeco-Roman Context (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 277, Leuven/Paris/Bristol CT: Peeters, 2015), pp. 443‑455. (2004) uses rhetorical analysis to clarify Paul’s argument in Galatians 3. According to Caballero, a Christological thesis forms the centre of the argument. This is backed up by Scripture and Paul’s authority (based on revelation). Caballero describes the argument in this pericope as one based on the experience of the Galatians, a call upon their good sense. D. Francois Tolmie 25 10 M. Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2001 [1996], 2nd edition), pp. 58–61. (2005) offers a text-based rhetorical analysis of Galatians. Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope is summarised as the use of a series of accusatory rhetorical questions in order to remind the Galatians of events they experienced that support his gospel. Mika Hietanen 26 11 P.A. Holloway, “The Enthymeme as an Element of Style in Paul”, Journal of Biblical Literature 120:2 (2001), pp. 339–343. https://doi.org/10.2307/3268298 (2005) offers a pragma-dialectical analysis of Galatians 3:1–5:12 and identifies two arguments in this pericope: that God does not require it of the Galatians to be circumcised and that they will nullify their spiritual experiences if they are circumcised. 27 12 J.A. Dunne, “Suffering in Vain: A Study of the Interpretation of ΠΑΣΧΩ in Galatians 3.4”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36:1 (2013), pp. 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X13480086 David V. Urban 28 13 H. Wendt, “Galatians 3:1 as an Allusion to Textual Prophecy”, Journal of Biblical Literature 135:2 (2016), pp. 369–389. https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1352.2016.2968 (2010) discusses the ways in which Paul uses a rhetoric of rebuke to shape the ethos of his readers. Four instances of rebuke in the letter are investigated (1:6–7; 3:1–5; 4:8–11 and 5:2–12) by means an Aristotelian analysis and by linking it to Jeremiah. In the case of this pericope, Urban focuses on Aristotle’s views on shaming and an appeal by Jeremiah that is similar to that of Paul (Jeremiah 4:22). Ernst R. Wendland 29 14 D. Nässelqvist, “Könsinkluderande Språk i Nästa Svenska Bibelöversättning”, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 81 (2016), pp. 169–216. (2014) offers a rhetorical analysis of vv. 1–14 (focused on oral-aural qualities) which is used as a basis for evaluating the passage in two Bible translations (1922 and 1988). Wendland also makes suggestions as to how mother-tongue speakers can be helped to overcome some of the conceptual challenges in the text. Antonio Pitta 30 15 J.A. Kelhoffer, “The Apostle Paul and Justin Martyr on the Miraculous: A Comparison of Appeals to Authority”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 42:2 (2001), pp. 163–184. Updated version: J.A. Kelhoffer, Conceptions of “Gospel” and Legitimacy in Early Christianity (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.324, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), pp. 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-152993-1 (2015) draws attention to mimesis in Galatians. Although it does not occur explicitly, it is found implicitly in 1:13–2:21, 3:5–6 and 4:28–31. This shows that mimesis was very important to Paul in situations where religious identity was in danger.

4.4 Semiotic approaches

Brigitte Kahl 31 16 J.K. Koivisto, “Martin Luther’s Conception of fascinare (Gal. 3:1)”, Biblical Interpretation 19:4/5 (2011), pp. 471–495. https://doi.org/10.1163/156851511X595521 (2017) offers an interactive reading of The Galatian Suicide and v. 1, focusing in particular on the binary semiotics between the two. Kahl finds that “Paul’s verbal icon of Christ Crucified (Gal 3:1) emerges as the transbinary Messianic reimagination of The Galatian Suicide: a life practice outside as much as inside the ‘iron cage’ of its binaries, yet never reconcilable with them.” 32 17 M. Morson, “Reformed, Lutheran, and ‘New Perspective’: A Dialogue between Traditions Regarding the Interpretation of ‘Works of the Law’ in Galatians”, Canadian Theological Review 1:2 (2012), pp. 61–67.

4.5 Speech act theory

Pieter Verster 33 18 T.S. Berzon, “‘O, Foolish Galatians’: Imagining Pauline Community in Late Antiquity”, Church History 85:3 (2016), pp. 435–467. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640716000433 (2007) uses speech act theory to distinguish between various types of non-authentic questions in Galatians. This makes it possible to describe the intended effect of each question more accurately. Verster classifies the questions in this pericope as follows: v. 1 – appeal, v. 2 – statement negative, v. 3 – appeal, followed by statement negative, v. 4 – emphatic rhetorical interrogative and v. 5 – statement.

5. Theological issues

5.1 Pneumatology

Peter Dschulnigg 34 19 S. Eastman, “The Evil Eye and the Curse of the Law: Galatians 3.1 Revisited”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24:1 (2001), pp. 69–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0142064X0102400104 (2001) offers a detailed discussion of all 18 instances of the term “spirit” in Galatians. In the case of vv. 2, 3 and 5, Dschulnigg focuses on the Spirit as the dimension of experiencing justification by faith. On the basis of this pericope, Stephen Kerry 35 20 W.N. Wilder, “‘To Whom Has the Arm of the Lord Been Revealed?’: Signs and Wonders in Paul’s Isaianic Mission to the Gentiles (Romans 15:18–21 and Galatians 3:1–5)”, in: T.A. Wilson and P.R. House (eds.), The Crucified Apostle: Essays on Peter and Paul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.450, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), pp. 225–260. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-155610-4 (2010) argues that Paul regarded the Spirit as the sine qua non of the identity of the believer. This pericope depicts the role of the Spirit “in a believer’s life as the conterminous and confirmatory sign of true conversion”. 36 21 S.M. Lee, “‘Experiences in Receiving the Spirit’ of the Galatian Community and the Object of ‘The Promise of the Spirit’”, 신약논단 19:4 (2012), pp. 1173–1207. This pericope is one of the passages that Robby J. Kagarise 37 22 A.C. Niang, “Seeing Jesus Christ Crucified in Galatians 3:1 under Watchful Imperial Eyes”, in: A.C. Niang and C. Osiek (eds.), Text, Image, and Christians in the Graeco-Roman World: A Festschrift in Honor of David Lee Balch (Princeton Theological Monograph Series 176, Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012), pp. 160–182. (2014) investigates in a study of Paul’s charismatic imperatives. The view of the Spirit found here is summarised as “the miraculous Spirit”. According to Kagarise, the emphasis is on the fact that through faith, human agency may function within the horizon of the Holy Spirit.

5.2 Anthropology

Anthony C. Thiselton 38 23 F.M. M’bwangi, “Paul and Identity Construction in Early Christianity and the Roman Empire”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 76:4 (2020), pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i4.5652 (2018) points out that some people think that Paul did not have a high estimation of human reason but draws attention to v. 1 and other passages showing that this is not true. In v. 1, Paul pleads that the Galatians should not be bewitched; they should use their reason.

5.3 Covenant

William J. Dumbrell 39 24 J.L. Caballero, “La Promesa a Abrahán según Ga 3,1–29”, Scripta Theologica 36:1 (2004), pp. 259–272. (2000) reads 3:1–14 from the perspective of the covenant. This section shows that in Christ, God established a new covenant and a new form of forgiveness. All who kept on relying on obedience to the law, thinking that they are thereby staying in the covenant, fell under the curse of the law. Philip la G. du Toit 40 25 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 (2018) critically evaluates the Radical New Perspective on Paul as well as the Messianic Judaist approach to Galatians and then highlights the criteria that Paul identifies for membership of the covenant in Galatians 3: a contrast between faith/works and Spirit/flesh and between the old era in the law/new era in Christ. This continues the promise to Abraham, but in a renewed, redrawn fashion.

5.4 Soteriology

General Peder Borgen 41 26 M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Printing House, 2005). Updated version: M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Library of New Testament Studies 344, London: T & T Clark, 2007). See also: M. Hietanen, “The Argumentation in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9:2 (2007), pp. 99–120. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52342 (2000) is of the opinion that Paul’s main point in vv. 1–14 is: “[T]he fact that Christ Jesus was crucified as a cursed criminal made it evident that those who relied upon this Sinaitic law were themselves under a curse. Thus, Christ’s death marked the end of the Sinaitic law and the beginning of the new era when the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles and ‘we’ could receive the promise of the Spirit.” 42 27 See the 2007 version, p. 99. The expression “faith of Christ” Denis R. Lindsay 43 28 D.V. Urban, “The Rhetoric of Rebuke and Community-Shaping in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: An Aristotelian Analysis, with Jeremiah as an Alternative Interpretive Rubric”, Scandinavian Evangelical E-Journal for New Testament Studies 1 (2010), pp. 28–42. (2000) draws attention to three parallel expressions in 2:16–3:5: “faith of Christ”, “works of the law” and “hearing of faith”. Lindsay is of the opinion that the genitive should be interpreted in all three instances as an attributive genitive/genitive of quality, which means that “faith of Christ” should be understood as faith pertaining solely to Christ, faith that is consistent with Christ. The expression “works of the law” Martin G. Abegg Jr. 44 29 E.R. Wendland, “The Linguistic, Conceptual, and Pragmatic Challenges of Communicating Galatians 3:1–14 in Chewa”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 19 (2014), pp. 58–80. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v33i2S.4 (2001) discusses the expression “works of the law” in 4QMMT and Paul, arguing that although it is clear that Paul did not know 4QMMT, the theological issue reflected in 4QMMT in this regard apparently survived intact until the first century CE. Robert Keith Rapa 45 30 A. Pitta, “I Gradi della Mimesi nella Lettera ai Galati”, Liber Annuus 65 (2015), pp. 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.LA.4.000113 (2001) interprets the expression as referring to legalistic observances of the Jewish law, which were mistakenly believed by Paul’s opponents to be salvific. In dialogue with recent studies on the term, Moisés Silva 46 31 B. Kahl, “The Galatian Suicide and the Transbinary Semiotics of Christ Crucified (Galatians 3:1): Exercises in Visual Exegesis and Critical Reimagination”, in: V.K. Robbins, W.S. Melion and R.R. Jeal (eds.), The Art of Visual Exegesis: Rhetoric, Texts, Images (Emory Studies in Early Christianity 19, Atlanta GA: SBL Press, 2017), pp. 195–240. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1pk86wt.11 (2004) maintains that if one wishes to explain Paul’s view of justification in Galatians, one cannot escape the fact that there is a contrast between “works of the law” and faith in 2:15–3:25. Silva offers several arguments why one cannot restrict the expression to identity markers and why it is best to understand the expression “faith of Christ” as an objective genitive. Michael Bachmann published several contributions on the meaning of the expression. In the first one, Bachmann 47 32 Op. cit., p. 201. (2005) opts for interpreting it as a reference to halakhic regulations. Paul believed that salvation was based on the Christ-event and not on the regulations of the law. In the second one, Bachmann 48 33 P. Verster, “The Implications of Non-Authentic Questions in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9 (2007), pp. 142–161. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52344 (2009) disagrees with explanations of the expression as referring to good deeds of people (as Hofius proposes) and instead understands it as referring to halakhot (a set of regulations/boundary markers). Bachmann supports this choice by various texts: Revelation 2:26, T. Levi 19:1–2, 4QMMT C27 and y. Qid 63d. In a third study, Bachmann 49 34 P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: J. Eckert, M. Schmidl and H. Steichele (eds.), Pneuma und Gemeinde: Christsein in der Tradition des Paulus und Johannes: Festschrift für Josef Hainz zum 65. Geburtstag (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2001), pp. 15–32. Also available in: P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: B. Kowalski, R. Höffner and J. Verheyden (eds.), Studien zu Einleitungsfragen und zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Gesammelte Aufsätze von Peter Dschulnigg (Biblical Tools and Studies 9, Leuven/Paris/Walpole MA: Peeters, 2010), pp. 355–370. (2010) again focuses on the expression, once more arguing that it is to be interpreted as referring to halakhot distinguishing Jews from Gentiles. Jacqueline C.R. de Roo 50 35 S. Kerry, “An Exegetical Analysis of Galatians 3:1–5, with Particular Reference to Pneumatological Themes That Relate to the Onset and Continuation of Christian Identity, with Respect to Law and Gospel”, Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research 2 (2010), pp. 57–86. (2007) compares the meaning of the expression at Qumran and in Paul. According to De Roo, at Qumran it refers to deeds that were done in obedience to God’s law, which were regarded as a means of atonement. In Galatians, however, it refers to the works of Abraham, which could not bring about atonement. Paul L. Owen 51 36 Op. cit., p. 86. (2007) interprets the genitive in the expression (“works of the law”) in Romans and Galatians as a subjective genitive, i.e., as referring to the works brought about by the law (which failed to produce righteousness. Michael Morson 52 37 R.J. Kagarise, Paul’s Charismatic Imperatives (Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 43, Dorset: Deo Publishing, 2014), pp. 120–123. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004397194 (2012) defends the interpretation of the expression (used in vv. 2 and 5) by Luther and Calvin as “good works” against criticism by the New Perspective. Morson finds Luther’s and Calvin’s interpretation of the expression exegetically good and pastorally useful. Jeffrey R. Reber 53 38 A.C. Thiselton, Puzzling Passages in Paul: Forty Conundrums Calmly Considered (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2018), pp. 188–191. (2012) explains Paul’s view of justification by looking at vv. 2 and 5. According to Reber, the expression “from the message of faith” should be interpreted as an objective genitive, implying trust in God’s promises. The other option (“from the works of the law”) should be interpreted as a subjective genitive, implying trust in the performance of works of the law. Barry F. Parker 54 39 W.J. Dumbrell, “Abraham and the Abrahamic Covenant in Galatians 3:1–14”, in: P. Bolt and M. Thompson (eds.), The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission (Downers Grove IL: IVP Apollos, 2000), pp. 19–31. (2013) reads the expression “works of the law” against the background of the Jewish settlement in Asia Minor, arguing that Paul adapted Anatolian notions to serve his own polemic. The expression referred to particular works of the law practised by his opponents and covered (different) practices in Judaism and paganism. Le Chih Hsieh 55 40 P. la G. du Toit, “Galatians 3 and the Redefinition of the Criteria of Covenant Membership in the New Faith-Era in Christ”, Neotestamentica 52:1 (2018), pp. 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1353/neo.2018.0002 (2018) interprets the genitive in “works of the law” as a subjective genitive and offers a new interpretation of the expression: it refers to the functions of the law or what the law characteristically does.

5.5 Spirituality

D. Francois Tolmie 56 41 P. Borgen, “Openly Portrayed as Crucified: Some Observations on Gal 3:1–14”, in: D.G. Horrell and C.M. Tuckett (eds.), Christology, Controversy, and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole (Novum Testamentum Supplements 99, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2000), pp. 345–353. (2013) identifies three core elements of the spiritual activity of discernment (reflection, choice and the relationship to God) and discusses several references to discernment in Galatians: 2:1–10, 2:11–21, 3:1–5 and 5:13–6:10.

5.6 Missiology

According to Peder Borgen 57 42 Op. cit., p. 351. (2018), vv. 1–14 offer us insight into Paul’s perspective as a missionary to the Gentiles. In this passage, Paul distinguishes between two jurisdictions, a Sinaitic one and an Abrahamic one, and uses the expression “in Jesus Christ” to refer to Christ in a collective sense and to the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham that believers now experience. Chapter 7: Galatians 3:6–14 A variety of issues was investigated by scholars, but the issue that received the most attention by far was the quotations that Paul uses in this pericope.

1. Introductory issues

1.1 Authorship

Thomas Witulski 1 43 D.R. Lindsay, “Works of Law, Hearing of Faith and πίστις Χριστοῦ in Galatians 2:16–3:5”, Stone-Campbell Journal 3:1 (2000), pp. 79–88. (2014) discusses the pericope as an example proving the relecture of an originally shorter letter of Paul by an editor. Witulski believes that certain parts of vv. 8, 11–12 and 14 were added by an editor in an attempt to shape the contents of this pericope to fit the broader theological perspective of the apostle.

1.2 Background

Andrea Damascelli 2 44 M.G. Abegg Jr., “4QMMT, Paul, and ‘Works of the Law’”, in: P. Flint (ed.), The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape and Interpretation (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, Grand Rapids MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2001), pp. 203–216. (2001) is of the opinion that the link between curse and redemption in v. 13 goes back to the Book of Esther (LXX) where cross, curse and redemption were linked to the crucifixion of Haman and that Paul thus alludes to the cross of Haman in this verse. According to Basil S. Davis 3 45 R.K. Rapa, The Meaning of “Works of the Law” in Galatians and Romans (Studies in Biblical Literature 31, New York NY: Peter Lang, 2001). (2002), Paul’s reference to Christ becoming a curse (v. 13) contains an allusion to Roman devotio, i.e., a human sacrifice who died in order to break a curse. Marc Rastoin 4 46 M. Silva, “Faith versus Works of Law in Galatians”, in: D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume II: The Paradoxes of Paul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.181, Tübingen/Grand Rapids MI: Mohr Siebeck/Baker Academic, 2004), pp. 217–248. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157089-6 (2003) explains the way in which Paul makes use of insights from both the Jewish and Greek cultures in order to persuade the recipients in 3:6–4:7. Rastoin discusses aspects found in this section such as diatribe, synagogal sermons, gezerah shawah and status scripti en voluntatis. Kelli S. O’Brien 5 47 M. Bachmann, “Keil oder Mikroskop? Zur jüngeren Diskussion um den Ausdruck ‘Werke des Gesetzes’”, in: M. Bachmann and J. Woyke (eds.), Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive: Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.182, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 69–134. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157299-9 Also available in: M. Bachmann, Von Paulus zur Apokalypse – und weiter: (2006) disagrees with the wide-spread perception amongst scholars that Jews in the New Testament era regarded people that were crucified as cursed by God because of Deuteronomy 21:22–23 and that this is the background for v. 13. O’Brien points out that this idea is not supported by textual evidence. According to Rodrigo J. Morales 6

(samt englischsprachigen Summaries) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 91, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 91–160. Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Neuen Testament

(2009), Paul’s reference to the Spirit in v. 14 is based on a Jewish tradition found in Deutero-Isaiah, the Words of the Luminaries (from Qumran) and the Testament of Judah, according to which the Spirit and divine blessing are depicted as an indication of the end-time redemption of Israel. Birgit van der Lans 7 48 M. Bachmann, “Was für Praktiken? Zur jüngsten Diskussion um die ἔργα νόμου”, New Testament Studies 55:1 (2009), pp. 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868850900006X Also available in: M. Bachmann, Von Paulus zur Apokalypse – und weiter: Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Neuen Testament (samt englischsprachigen Summaries) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 91, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 207–226. (2010) elucidates Paul’s argument on Abraham in Galatians 3 and 4 by means of Jewish texts in which Abraham was regarded as either the father of many nations or the father of the Jews. Mark T. Finney 8 49 M. Bachmann, “Bemerkungen zur Auslegung zweier Genitivverbindungen des Galaterbriefs: ‘Werke des Gesetzes’ (Gal 2,16 u.ö.) und ‘Israel Gottes’ (Gal 6,16)”, in: M. Bachmann and B. Kollmann (eds.), Umstrittener Galaterbrief: Studien zur Situierung und Theologie des Paulus-Schreibens (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 106, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010), pp. 95–118. Also available in: M. Bachmann, Von Paulus zur Apokalypse – und weiter: Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Neuen Testament (samt englischsprachigen Summaries) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 91, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 277–295. (2013) explains the dynamics of honour and shame behind crucifixion in the ancient world as follows: It was regarded as a servile supplicium (“punishment of slaves”) and from the perspective of the elite, the utter humiliation of being executed in public in the manner of a slave was revulsive. Florentino García Martínez 9 50 J.C.R. de Roo, “Works of the Law” at Qumran and in Paul (New Testament Monographs 13, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007). (2014) shows that the way in which Paul’s thoughts on three concepts (the works of the law, curse and justification by grace) in vv. 10–14 were informed by the Biblical text was similar to the reflection on the same texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Daniel R. Streett 10 51 P.L. Owen, “The ‘Works of the Law’ in Romans and Galatians: A New Defense of the Subjective Genitive”, Journal of Biblical Literature 126:3 (2007), pp. 553–577. https://doi.org/10.2307/27638452 (2015) disagrees with the commonly-held view that Second Temple Judaism regarded everyone who was crucified as cursed. According to Streett, it was believed that Deuteronomy 21:23 implied that only those who were crucified and who were also guilty of capital crimes were cursed. Streett thus argues that Paul did not believe that Jesus was cursed by God only as a result of the way in which he died. That Jesus “became a curse” rather refers to the way in which he was humiliated and treated by his fellow Jews. Bradley Trick 11 52 M. Morson, “Reformed, Lutheran, and ‘New Perspective’: A Dialogue between Traditions Regarding the Interpretation of ‘Works of the Law’ in Galatians”, Canadian Theological Review 1:2 (2012), pp. 61–67. (2016) proposes that Paul’s views of a διαθήκη (“testament” or “covenant”) in Galatians 3–4 are best understood in terms of a Hellenistic testament by which God adopted Abraham, with “children” in 3:7 referring to Jews, “children of promise” (4:28) referring to Gentiles and “seed” (3:16) referring to Christ and the union of Gentiles and Jews in Christ in 3:29. Jarvis J. Williams 12 53 J.R. Reber, “A New Perspective on Paul’s Doctrine of Justification in Galatians 3:2, 5”, Evangelical Journal 30:1 (2012), pp. 40–48. (2019) is of the opinion that v. 13 should be understood against the background of ideas on martyrs found in 2 and 4 Maccabees and Daniel 3 (LXX) although Paul modified these ideas to fit his theology.

1.3 Paul’s opponents

Based on the depiction of Abraham in this pericope, Thomas Witulski 13 54 B.F. Parker, “‘Works of the Law’ and the Jewish Settlement in Asia Minor”, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 9 (2013), pp. 42–96. (2014) argues that Paul’s opponents in Galatia believed that sonship of Abraham (i.e., the blessing and justification associated with this notion) was based on the law. In this part of the letter, Paul thus argues against such a “soteriological dysfunctionality” of the law.

2. Linguistic and stylistic issues

Gordon D. Fee 14 55 L.C. Hsieh, “The Works of the Law as the Functions of Law”, Sino-Christian Studies 25 (2018), pp. 7–45. (2007) discusses the way in which Paul uses the locative ἐν in v. 16, as well as in 1:6, 1:16, 2:20, 3:11–12 and 3:26. According to Fee, with the exception of 1:16, the emphasis is on how the Galatians should maintain their life in Christ, not on how they became his followers. Friedrich Avemarie 15 56 D.F. Tolmie, “Discernment in the Letter to the Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 17 (2013), pp. 156–171. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v32i2S.12 (2009) investigates the importance of lexematic association in exegesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in Paul’s letters. In the case of Galatians, this happens in vv. 10–12. Avemarie concludes that this type of exegesis was a conscious choice and was based on the conviction that the Hebrew Scriptures formed a coherent whole. Michael H. Burer 16 57 P. Borgen, “Perspectives for Mission: Galatians 3:1–14 in Context”, in: D.E. Aune and R. Hvalvik (eds.), The Church and Its Mission in the New Testament and Early Christianity: Essays in Memory of Hans Kvalbein (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.404, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), pp. 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004452787_009 (2016) studies expressions that are similar to “sons of Abraham” (v. 7) and argues that this expression is used in Galatians as a “spiritual, qualitive designation” describing the character of those that are linked to Abraham. It thus refers to spiritual attitude. One of the examples that Justin King 17 1 T. Witulski, “Einheitlichkeit versus Relecture: Gal 3,6–14 als Testfall”, Liber Annuus 64:1 (2014), pp. 337–390. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.LA.5.105501 (2018) discusses in a study of “speech-in-character” in Romans 3:1–9 is Galatians 3:8. According to King, the way in which Paul uses speech-in-character here satisfies all the conventions and comes closest to Quintilian’s views about speech-in-character.

3. Wirkungsgeschichte

Eliud Wabukala and Grant LeMarquand 18 2 A. Damascelli, “Croce, Maledizione e Redenzione: Un’eco di Purim in Galati 3,13”, Henoch 23:2 (2001), pp. 227–241. (2000) appropriate v. 13 within an African context. They point out that both first-century Jews and the Babukusu people connect hanging on a tree with the notion of curse but that Paul interpreted the hanging on a cross as bringing blessing to believers and that this logic of sacrifice enabled Babukusu believers to regard the cross as a sign of blessing. Franco Manzi 19 3 B.S. Davis, Christ as Devotio: The Argument of Galatians 3:1–14 (Lanham MD: University Press of America, 2002). (2002) discusses the way in which the annulment of the curse in Deuteronomy 21:23 in vv. 13–14 was handled by Justin Martyr in his Dialogue of Trypho. Asger Chr. Højlund (2010) 20 4 M. Rastoin, Tarse et Jérusalem: La double culture de l’apôtre Paul en Galates 3,6–4,7 (Analecta Biblica 152, Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2003). provides an overview of Luther’s interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in the light of his understanding of law and gospel in his commentary on Galatians. According to Højlund, for Luther there was a deep coherence between the two, but also an important difference between them – a helpful perspective for our current discussions of the matter. Peter W. Martens 21 5 K.S. O’Brien, “The Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.13): Crucifixion, Persecution, and Deuteronomy 21.22–23”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29:1 (2006), pp. 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X06068383 (2010) traces the reception of Paul’s use of Deuteronomy in v. 13 by Justin Martyr, Augustine and Theodore Anu Qurrah. Martens shows that these authors followed and developed Paul’s interpretation of the text as implying God’s curse on the Messiah. Michael Morson 22 6 R.J. Morales, “The Words of the Luminaries, the Curse of the Law, and the Outpouring of the Spirit in Gal 3,10–14”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 100:2 (2009), pp. 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1515/ZNTW.2009.0014 (2012) defends the interpretation of the expression “works of the law” by Luther and Calvin as “good works” (used in v. 10) against criticism by the New Perspective. Morson finds Luther’s and Calvin’s interpretation of the expression exegetically good and pastorally useful. Pierre-Marie Hombert 23 7 B. van der Lans, “Belonging To Abraham’s Kin: Genealogical Appeals To Abraham as a Possible Background for Paul’s Abrahamic Argument”, in: M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten and J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill 2010), pp. 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004216495_021 (2014) gives an overview of the patristic exegesis of v. 13. Hombert identifies several tendencies, such as positive readings of the text (emphasising the cross as blessing), moral and penal readings, as well as an “ontological reading” (by Augustine: Christ assumed death as the punishment of sin). Timothy Wengert 24 8 M.T. Finney, “Servile supplicium: Shame and the Deuteronomic Curse – Crucifixion in Its Cultural Context”, Biblical Theology Bulletin 43:3 (2013), pp. 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146107913493561 Take note that Finney disagrees with Paula Fredricksen’s interpretation of the curse mentioned in Galatians 3:13: P. Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2”, Journal of Theological Studies 42:2 (1991), pp. 532–564. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/42.2.532 (2014) discusses Luther’s interpretation of this pericope and shows that his approach to exegesis was dominated by two objectives: outlining doctrine and explaining its effect for believers (doctrina et usus). Scott Hafemann 25 9 F. García Martínez, “Galatians 3:10–14 in the Light of Qumran”, in: J.-S. Rey (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 102, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2014), pp. 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004230071_005 See also: F. García Martínez, “La Ley, las Obras y la Gracia: Gal 3,10–14 a la Luz de Qumran”, Revista Catalana de Teologia 35:2 (2010), pp. 489–508. (2014) investigates Luther’s interpretation of the same passage critically. Hafemann points out that one can agree with Luther on several points but that there are also views in his interpretation that one has to reject. Sotirios Despotis 26 10 D.R. Streett, “Cursed by God? Galatians 3:13, Social Status, and Atonement Theory in the Context of Early Jewish Readings of Deuteronomy 21:23”, Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 5:2 (2015), pp. 189–209. (2017) offers an Eastern-Orthodox reading of vv. 6–9 (and also of vv. 23–29) based on the interpretation of John Chrysostom. Despotis is of the view that Chrysostom’s interpretation had a solid exegetical basis. Samuel Vollenweider 27 11 B. Trick, Abrahamic Descent, Testamentary Adoption, and the Law in Galatians: Differentiating Abraham’s Sons, Seed, and Children of Promise (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 169, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2016). (2017) uses examples from Galatians (1:1–9, 2:12–21 and 3:13) and Philippians to illustrate Bullinger’s interpretation of Paul. Vollenweider highlights two aspects: Bullinger follows Melanchthon’s rhetorical approach but in a milder way, and, furthermore, his hermeneutical approach was characterised by a focus on the scopus of Scripture and the way in which it could be organised in terms of loci. Kenneth P. Minkema, Adriaan C. Neele and Allen M. Stanton 28 12 J.J. Williams, Christ Redeemed ‘Us’ from the Curse of the Law: A Jewish Martyrological Reading of Galatians 3.13 (Library of New Testament Studies 524, London: T & T Clark, 2019). https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567692863 (2019) published several sermons by Jonathan Edwards that have not been published before, one of which is on v. 13. M. David Litwa 29 13 T. Witulski, “Die Gestalt des Abraham als Beleg für die soteriologische Dysfunktionalität des νόμος: Erwägungen zu Struktur und Argumentation von Gal 3,6–14”, Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 39 (2014), pp. 159–205. (2020) draws attention to the reception of the curse mentioned in v. 13 in some texts from Nag Hammadi. Litwa points out that in these texts the curse was often restricted to Jesus’ mortal part only. It was thought that his spiritual core was not touched by the curse. This is similar to the hermeneutics underlying the way in which the Adam-Eve narrative was sometimes interpreted in Nag Hammadi texts: they were cursed, but their spiritual cores were untouched.

4. Interpretative approaches

4.1 Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures

This issue was approached from various angles. The use of Genesis 15:6 in v. 6 According to Maureen W. Yeung 30 14 G.D. Fee, “Paul’s Use of Locative ἐν in Galatians: On Text and Meaning in Galatians 1.6; 1.16; 2.20; 3.11–12, and 3.26”, in: C.J. Roetzel and R.L. Foster (eds.), The Impartial God: Essays in Biblical Studies in Honor of Jouette M. Bassler (New Testament Monographs 22, Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2007), pp. 170–185. (2002), Paul did not follow the Jewish Biblical tradition regarding Genesis 15:6. Instead of linking Abraham’s righteousness to his obedience, Paul offered a new definition of the offspring of Abraham in terms of justification by faith, thus taking Jesus’ view of faith seriously. Based on etymology and the Hebrew Scriptures, Jose Enrique Aguilar Chiu 31 15 F. Avemarie, “Interpreting Scripture through Scripture: Exegesis Based on Lexematic Association in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pauline Epistles”, in: F. García Martínez (ed.), Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 85, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2009), pp. 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004176966.i-350.23 (2013) identifies the basic meaning of the concept “righteousness” as conformity to something that has been indicated. This makes sense of the way in which Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 (as in Galatians, since faith implies conformity to God’s word). One of the issues that Štefan Paluchník 32 16 M.H. Burer, “‘Sons of Abraham’ in Galatians 3:7 as a Spiritual, Qualitative Designation”, Bibliotheca Sacra 173 (2016), pp. 337–351. (2016) discusses in a contribution on Paul and early Christian traditions is Paul’s interpretation of Genesis 15:6. For Paul, this particular verse became the basic text (“Grundtext”) indicating the uniqueness of faith in Christ. The use of Deuteronomy in vv. 10 and 13 Guy Waters 33 17 J. King, Speech-in-Character, Diatribe, and Romans 3:1–9: Who’s Speaking When and Why It Matters (Biblical Interpretation Series 163, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2018), pp. 70–71. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373297 (2006) investigates the end of Deuteronomy in the letters of Paul. In the case of Galatians, Waters finds that Paul read Deuteronomy 27–30 as a whole, in conjunction with other texts from this book, interpreted the curse as applying to both Jews and Gentiles and may have followed the movement from “curse” to “blessing” in Deuteronomy in vv. 10–14. Roy E. Ciampa 34 18 E. Wabukala and G. LeMarquand, “Cursed Be Everyone Who Hangs on a Tree: Pastoral Implications of Deuteronomy 21:22–23 and Galatians 3:13 in an African Context”, in: G. West and M. Dube (eds.), The Bible in (2007) offers a thorough discussion of Paul’s use of Deuteronomy in Galatians and Romans. In the case of this pericope, Ciampa discusses the use of Deuteronomy 27:26 in v. 10 and of Deuteronomy 21:23 in v. 13. Ciampa concludes that it seems as if Paul regarded some texts as offering guidance for the period before Christ came and others as offering guidance for the situation of his readers. Timothy G. Gombis 35

(Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2000), pp. 350–359. Africa: Transactions, Trajectories, and Trends https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004497108_024

(2007) is critical of the way in which scholars interpret v. 10 and offers a novel interpretation of this pericope, arguing that Paul cited Deuteronomy 27:26 in continuity with its original setting in Deuteronomy. A.B. Caneday 36 19 F. Manzi, “L’annullamento della Maledizione di Dt. 21,23 in Galati nel Dialogo con Trifone”, Augustinianum 42:1 (2002), pp. 5–34. (2014) investigates Deuteronomy 21:22–23 in the contexts of the old and the new covenant. According to Caneday, Paul’s use of the text in v. 13 should not be regarded as arbitrary. Paul had realised that the text had typological significance. Mary A. Wilson 37 20 A.C. Højlund, “‘The One Who Does Them Shall Live by Them’: Luther’s Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in the Light of His Understanding of Law and Gospel in His Commentary on Galatians”, in: T. Johansson, R. Kolb and J.A. Steiger (eds.), Hermeneutica Sacra: Studien zur Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert/Studies of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Historia Hermeneutica: Series Studia 9, Berlin/New York NY: De Gruyter, 2010), pp. 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110236873.111 (2015) is of the opinion that Paul regarded Christ’s death on the cross as an unexpected fulfilment of a ritual referred to in the Hebrew Scriptures, according to which transgressors of the covenant were hung. Paul thus applied Deuteronomy 21:23 to refer to the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death. Wilson points out that looking at the text from different angles helps one to identify multiple textures in it. Gert J. Steyn 38 21 P.W. Martens, “‘Anyone Hung on a Tree Is under God’s Curse’ (Deuteronomy 21:23): Jesus’ Crucifixion and Interreligious Exegetical Debate in Late Antiquity”, Ex Auditu 26 (2010), pp. 69–90. (2015) explains how Paul interpreted Christ’s death retrodictively (a new term introduced by Steyn, meant to replace the notion of the “prediction” of Christ’s death in the Hebrew Scriptures) by means of Deuteronomy 21:23 in order to portray him as the one liberating humankind from the law. Daniel R. Streett 39 22 M. Morson, “Reformed, Lutheran, and ‘New Perspective’: A Dialogue between Traditions Regarding the Interpretation of ‘Works of the Law’ in Galatians”, Canadian Theological Review 1:2 (2012), pp. 61–67. (2015) disagrees with the commonly-held view that Second Temple Judaism regarded everyone who was crucified as cursed. It was believed that Deuteronomy 21:23 implied that only those who were crucified and who were also guilty of capital crimes were cursed. Streett thus argues that Paul did not believe that Jesus was cursed by God only as a result of the way in which he died. That Jesus “became a curse” rather refers to the way in which he was humiliated and treated by his fellow Jews. Michael M. Ramos 40 23 P.-M. Hombert, “‘Le Christ s’est fait pour nous malédiction’: L’éxégèse patristique de Galates 3,13”, in: I. Bochet and M. Fedou (eds.), L’exégèse patristique de l’Épître aux Galates (Collection des Études Augustiniennes: Série Antiquité 197, Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2014), pp. 181–248. (2016) uses social-rhetorical criticism to explain why Paul quoted Deuteronomy 27:26 to explain justification by faith in Christ. Roy E. Ciampa’s 41 24 T. Wengert, “Martin Luther on Galatians 3:6–14: Justification by Curses and Blessings”, in: M.W. Elliott, S.J. Hafemann, N.T. Wright and J. Frederick (eds.), Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 91–116. See also earlier: T.J. Wengert, Reading the Bible with Martin Luther: An Introductory Guide (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2013), pp. 92–122. contribution (2018) is on composite citations in 1 & 2 Corinthians and Galatians. In the case of Galatians, Ciampa discusses the combination of Deuteronomy 27:26 and 30:10 in v. 10. Ciampa points out that Paul does not often make use of composite quotations (only about 15% of the citations in 1 & 2 Corinthians and Galatians may be classified as composite citations) and that it seems as if he does so for increasing the rhetorical effect of his argument. J. Andrew Cowan 42 25 S. Hafemann, “Yaein: Yes and No to Luther’s Reading of Galatians 3:6–14”, in: M.W. Elliott, S.J. Hafemann, N.T. Wright and J. Frederick (eds.), Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 117–131. Updated version: S.J. Hafemann, Paul: Servant of the New Covenant: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.435, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), pp. 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157702-4 (2020) objects to interpretations understanding vv. 10–14 as referring to a corporate curse resting on Israel. Instead, Cowan understands Paul’s use of Deuteronomy 27:26 anthropologically but in a nuanced way, differing from earlier attempts to understand it anthropologically. The use of Habakkuk 2:4 in v. 11 According to Moisés Silva 43 26 S. Despotis, “Eine östlich-orthodoxe Lektüre von Gal. 3,6–9.23–29”, in: A. Despotis (ed.), Participation, Justification, and Conversion: Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Paul and the Debate between “Old and New Perspectives on Paul” (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.442, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), pp. 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-155453-7 (2001), Paul did not abuse Habakkuk 2:4 as a mere proof text. He truly used it as a source for his views and teachings, strengthening the message of this text. Debbie Hunn 44 27 S. Vollenweider, “Paulus in Zürich: Zur Briefauslegung von Heinrich Bullinger”, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 114:1 (2017), pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1628/004435417X14822419363900 (2009) examines Habakkuk in its context. Hunn believes that Paul remains within the framework of the book when he applies Habakkuk 2:4 to both Jews and Gentiles in v. 11 and in Romans 1:17. Wolfgang Kraus 45 28 K.P. Minkema, A.C. Neele and A.M. Stanton (eds.), Sermons by Jonathan Edwards on the Epistle to the Galatians (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2019), pp. 120–132. (2009) discusses Habakkuk 2:3–4 in the Hebrew tradition and the LXX, as well as its reception in the New Testament. Kraus points out that Paul only took up the last stichos of Habakkuk 2:4 in Galatians and Romans and left out “my” to emphasise “faith”. According to Kraus, Paul did not depart from the meaning of the text, but gave it a particular culmination. Stephen Hultgren 46 29 M.D. Litwa, “The Curse of the Creator: Galatians 3:13 and Negative Demiurgy”, in: F. Watson and S. Parkhouse (eds.), Telling the Christian Story Differently: Counter-Narratives from Nag Hammadi and Beyond (The Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries 5, London/New York NY/Oxford: T & T Clark Bloomsbury, 2020), pp. 13–30. https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567679543.ch-001 (2011) traces the use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Early Judaism, Hebrews and in Paul. In the case of Galatians 3:11, Hultgren finds that Paul’s use of the text is in line with a tendency in Early Judaism, and probably also in Early Christian circles, to read it eschatological-forensically. Furthermore, Paul used it polemically in order to exclude the notion of justification by law. E. Ray Clendenen 47 30 M.W. Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul: A Comparison with Special Reference to “Faith That Can Remove Mountains” and “Your Faith Has Healed/Saved You” (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.147, Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2002), pp. 226–286. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157184-8 (2014) disagrees with scholars who are of the opinion that Paul violated the meaning of Habakkuk 2:4 when he quoted it in Romans and in Galatians. Clendenen provides several reasons for interpreting the text in Habakkuk as referring to “faith” and not to faithfulness. Carlos Alberto Bezerra and Rafael Omar Nachabe 48 31 J.E. Aguilar Chiu, “The Basic Meaning of Righteousness and the Pauline Quote of Gn 15:6”, Estudios Bíblicos 71:2 (2013), pp. 235–269. (2019) investigate the use of Habakkuk 2:4 in the New Testament. According to them, this text is best described as an example of a “pregnant statement” as its meaning was expanded in the New Testament in the light of the coming of Christ. Verse 11b is one of the texts that Siegfried Kreuzer 49 32 Š. Paluchník, “Der Apostel Paulus und die älteren christlichen Traditionen”, Communio Viatorum 58:1 (2016), pp. 55–76. (2019) discusses in a study of the Greek text of Dodekapropheton as witnessed by quotations in the New Testament. Kreuzer thinks that Paul made use or had available the so-called OG text in the case of 3:11b. Arturo Bravo 50 33 G. Waters, The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.221, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), pp. 79–130. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157073-5 (2020) focuses on Paul’s use of quotations from the prophets in 1:15–16, 3:11 and 4:27. According to Bravo, Paul uses them to legitimise his apostleship and to show that salvation is a gift from God and not the result of human efforts. The use of Leviticus 18:5 in v. 12 Joel Willitts 51 34 R.E. Ciampa, “Deuteronomy in Romans and Galatians”, in: M.J.J. Menken and S. Moyise (eds.), Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel (Library of New Testament Studies 358, London: T & T Clark, 2007), pp. 99–117. (2003) points out that scholars have overlooked that Leviticus 18:5 was interpreted in later Jewish writings as referring to the fact that the potential of the covenant had not been realised. Paul might have understood this verse in a similar way, which implies that in vv. 10–14, he was contrasting the age when the potential of the covenant was not yet realised with the age in which it happened. According to Friedrich Avemarie 52 35 T.G. Gombis, “The ‘Transgressor’ and the ‘Curse of the Law’: The Logic of Paul’s Argument in Galatians 2–3”, New Testament Studies 53:1 (2007), pp. 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688507000057 (2005), Paul uses Leviticus 18:5 in different ways in Romans and Galatians. In Galatians 3:12, he uses it to show that the law has nothing to do with faith, but in Romans, 10:5 he interprets the “doing” of the law in a Christian sense. Nicole Chibici-Revneanu 53 36 A.B. Caneday, “‘Anyone Hung Upon a Pole Is under God’s Curse’: Deuteronomy 21:22–23 in Old and New Covenant Contexts”, The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 18:3 (2014), pp. 121–136. (2008) is of the view that when Paul quoted Leviticus 18:5 in v. 12 and Romans 10:5, he focused specifically on the words ἐν αὐτοῖς (“in them”) in order to contrast a life in the law and a life from faith (ἐκ πίστεως). Preston M. Sprinkle made two contributions on this theme. In the first one, Sprinkle 54 37 M.A. Wilson, “‘Cursed Is Everyone Who Is Hanged on a Tree’: Paul’s Citation of Deut 21:23 in Gal 3:13”, Trinity Journal 36 (2015), pp. 217‑240. (2008) discusses the interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and Paul. In the case of Galatians, Sprinkle argues that Paul objects to reading the text in the light of an “if … then” pattern, instead opting for emphasising issues such as God’s initiative. In the second one, Sprinkle 55 38 G.J. Steyn, “‘Retrodiction’ of the Old Testament in the New: The Case of Deuteronomy 21:23 in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians and the Crucifixion of Yehoshua ben Yoseph”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 71:3 (2015), pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v71i3.3091 (2009) identifies four different views of Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 in this verse, and offers arguments for what is called the “Law/Gospel (2)” approach: doing the law is criticised, since the law is defective. The problem thus lies with the law and not with humans, as is the case with what Sprinkle identifies as the “Law/Gospel (1)” approach. Douglas C. Mohrmann 56 39 D.R. Streett, “Cursed by God? Galatians 3:13, Social Status, and Atonement Theory in the Context of Early Jewish Readings of Deuteronomy 21:23”, Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 5:2 (2015), pp. 189–209. (2009) looks into the intertextual semantics of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians and Romans. Mohrmann offers an overview of Jewish interpretations of the text before showing that Paul uses the text in different ways in Galatians and Romans. In Galatians, it occurs in a context where he distinguishes between two options, but in Romans, it occurs in a context where he discusses a seeming failure of God’s word in history. Eric Ottenheijm 57 40 M.M. Ramos, “Deuteronomy 27:26: ‘The Curse of the Law’: Shall the People of God Be Identified by Law or by Christ?”, De La Salle Lipa Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 3:1 (2016), pp. 1–13. (2013) investigates Jewish and Christian discourse on Leviticus 18:5. Ottenheijm points out that both Paul and 4 Ezra questioned whether humankind could keep the law. According to Paul, no one could keep the law, and according to 4 Ezra, only a few people were able to do so. Merwyn S. Johnson 58 41 R.E. Ciampa, “Composite Citations in 1–2 Corinthians and Galatians”, in: S.A. Adams and S.M. Ehorn (eds.), Composite Citations in Antiquity: Volume Two: New Testament Uses (Library of New Testament Studies 593, London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2018), pp. 159–189. (2017) traces the use of Leviticus 18:5b in the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. Johnson is of the view that Paul uses it in Galatians and Romans to argue that the law was wrongly regarded as substituting God. Etienne Jodar 59 42 J.A. Cowan, “The Curse of the Law, the Covenant, and Anthropology in Galatians 3:10–14: An Examination of Paul’s Use of Deuteronomy 27:26”, Journal of Biblical Literature 139:1 (2020), pp. 211–229. https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1391.2020.11 (2020) disagrees with scholars who believe that Paul used Leviticus 18:5 in v. 12 and Romans 10:5 in order to depict the law in a negative way. Jodar contends that one should rather interpret Leviticus 18:5 as call upon people to practise faith. Jason S. DeRouchie 60 43 M. Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2001 [1996], 2nd edition), pp. 165–167. (2020) approaches the matter from a redemptive historical perspective. Leviticus 18:5 depicts the situation under the Mosaic law-covenant: humankind could not “do” the law so that it could attain life and thus the law became a guardian, enslaving them. Studies on more than one or all of the quotations in the pericope According to Jeffrey R. Wisdom 61 44 D. Hunn, “Habakkuk 2.4b in Its Context: How Far Off Was Paul?”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34:2 (2009), pp. 219–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089209356413 (2001), from the way in which Paul cites from and interprets texts from Genesis and Deuteronomy in vv. 8–10, it is clear that his interpretation differed from contemporary interpretations of these text. He regarded the notion of Abraham being a blessing for the nations as a central part of the covenant with Abraham. He also stressed the curse on those who were disloyal to the Lord – a notion that he applied to those who were from the works of the law. Moisés Silva 62 45 W. Kraus, “Hab 2:3–4 in the Hebrew Tradition and in the Septuagint, with Its Reception in the New Testament”, in: J. Cook (ed.), Septuagint and Reception: Essays Prepared for the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa (Vetus Testamentum Supplements 127, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2009), pp. 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004177253.i-414.31 (2001) raises the question as to how and why Paul selected the quotations in this passage. Silva thinks that Paul chose them as a result of the nature of the polemics in which he was engaged and not by a detached interpretation of the texts. In a detailed study of vv. 1–14, Andrew H. Wakefield 63 46 S. Hultgren, Habakkuk 2:4 in Early Judaism, in Hebrews, and in Paul (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 77, Paris: J. Gabalda, 2011), pp. 63–117. (2003) argues that Paul’s use of the Hebrew Bible reflects an interest or matrix which Wakefield describes as “where to live”, i.e., that Paul urged the Galatians to live in the new age rather than the old age. Michael Bachmann 64 47 E.R. Clendenen, “Salvation by Faith or by Faithfulness in the Book of Habakkuk?”, Bulletin for Biblical Research 24:4 (2014), pp. 505–513. (2007) explains Paul’s argument in vv. 10–12 as follows: The point that Paul wishes to convey is found in v. 10a. The quotations and v. 11a supply the four arguments, in two syllogisms (vv. 10b–11a and vv. 11b–12). Moisés Silva 65 48 C.A. Bezerra and R.O. Nachabe, “O Uso do Antigo Testamento no Novo Testamento: Um Estudo das Citações de Habacuque 2:4”, Revista Batista Pioneira 8:1 (2019), pp. 83–111. (2007) discusses all the quotations in the pericope. Silva detects a structure of argumentation based on the quotations that are summarised in terms of five theses that are all motivated by them. Sigurd Grindheim 66 49 S. Kreuzer, “Stages of the Greek Text of Dodekapropheton Witnessed by the Quotations in the New Testament”, in: C. Dogniez and P. le Moigne (eds.), Les Douze Prophètes dans la LXX: Protocoles et procédures dans la traduction grecque: Stylistique, poétique et histoire (Vetus Testamentum Supplements 180, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2019), https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004407657_018 (2007) is of the opinion that Paul regarded his fellow Jews, as well as himself during his time as Pharisee, as apostates and that such a perspective helps one to understand his use of Deuteronomy 27:26 and Leviticus 18:5 in vv. 10–12 better. Paul thus read these texts in terms of the prophetic tradition, according to which they were regarded as the ground for divine judgement on Israel. Steve Moyise 67 50 A. Bravo, “Los Profetas y San Pablo en la Carta a los Gálatas”, Cuestiones Teológicas 36:86 (2020), pp. 265–277. (2008) offers a detailed overview of the two ways in which scholars explain Paul’s use of citations in vv. 10–14. Some accept the truth of all the texts that Paul quotes whereas others see an antithesis between what is said in Leviticus 18:15 and Deuteronomy 27:26 on the one hand and Habakkuk 2:4 on the other. Jean-Noël Aletti 68 51 J. Willitts, “Context Matters: Paul’s Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12”, Tyndale Bulletin 54:2 (2003), pp. 105–122. https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.30256 (2011) points out that scholars struggle to explain the logic of Paul’s argumentation in vv. 10–14 and offers the following solution: If one realises that Paul made use of the technique of gezerah shawoth (the explanation of one Scriptural passage with the help of another in order to resolve apparent contradictions), his argument makes sense. Dan Batovici 69 52 F. Avemarie, “Paul and the Claim of the Law According to Scripture: Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12 and Romans 10:5”, in: J. Pastor and M. Mor (eds.), The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles (Jerusalem: Yad ben-Zvi Press, 2005), pp. 125–148. Also available in: J. Frey and A. Standhartinger (eds.), Friedrich Avemarie: Neues Testament und frührabbinisches Judentum: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.316, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), pp. 511–530. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-152924-5 (2013) discusses the function of reference to the Hebrew Scriptures in Galatians. Batovici shows that Paul generally uses them as providing proof for his arguments. Sometimes he departs from the original meaning of a quotation and in several cases, he tells believers what to do even if the text that he cites indicates the opposite. According to François Vouga 70 53 N. Chibici-Revneanu, “Leben im Gesetz: Die paulinische Interpretation von Lev 18:5 (Gal 3:12; Röm 10:5)”, Novum Testamentum 50:2 (2008), pp. 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853608X289856 (2014), the way in which the Hebrew Scriptures are interpreted in vv. 6–29 is best described as a first Christian theology of the Old Testament, in particular as a response to the question of how the law and the prophets should be interpreted from the event of the crucifixion of the Son of God. Bruce Chilton 71 54 P.M. Sprinkle, Law and Life: The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and in Paul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.241, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), pp. 133–164. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151584-2 (2014) explains how Paul goes about using terms, allusions and quotations from LXX passages in vv. 10–14 in order to prove his point. Chilton does so by focusing on two issues: references that can be identified and similarities at a linguistic level. Michael B. Shepherd 72 55 P.M. Sprinkle, “Why Can’t ‘The One Who Does These Things Live by Them’?: The Use of Leviticus 18.5 in Galatians 3.12”, in: C.A. Evans and H.D. Zacharias (eds.), Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 2: Exegetical Studies (Library of New Testament Studies 392, London/New York NY: T & T Clark, 2009), pp. 126–137. (2014) brings together in one volume cases where “the text in the middle” is important, meaning that “the way in which the text is cited has already been anticipated in a previous citation of the original text, thus involving at least three texts (primary, secondary, and tertiary)”. 73 56 D.C. Mohrmann, “Of ‘Doing’ and ‘Living’: The Intertextual Semantics of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians and Romans”, in: B.J. Oropeza, C.K. Robertson and D.C. Mohrmann (eds.), Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in Honor of James D.G. Dunn for His 70th Birthday (Library of New Testament Studies 414, London/New York NY: T & T Clark, 2009), pp. 151–172. https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567660831.ch-013 In the case of this pericope, Shepherd explains how this happens in vv. 6, 8, 11 and 12 (elsewhere also in 3:16, 19 and 4:21–5:1). According to Timothy G. Gombis 74 57 E. Ottenheijm, “‘Which If a Man Do Them He Shall Live by Them’: Jewish and Christian Discourse on Lev 18:5”, in: B. Koet, S. Moyise and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian (2014), Paul does not argue abstractly about the law and Christian faith in vv. 10–14. He rather employs a series of ad hoc arguments strategically in order to address the crisis in Galatia (as he understands it). Debbie Hunn 75

(Novum Testamentum Supplements 148, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2013), pp. 303–316. Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maarten J.J. Menken https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004247727_021

(2016) argues that in order to follow Paul’s argument and his use of Scripture in vv. 6–9, one should be aware of the fact that he introduces the notion of a metaphorical father-son relationship in v. 7. Martinus C. de Boer 76 58 M.S. Johnson, “The Idiom of Scripture, Leviticus 18:5, and Theology: At a Time of Paradigm Shift”, Biblical Theology Bulletin 47:3 (2017), pp. 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146107917715588 (2020) discusses the status of the text of the Hebrew Scriptures for Paul in Galatians, in particular its value or authority. De Boer thinks that Paul selected texts that supported his interpretation of the gospel and that undermined the claims of his opponents. Since the Scripture was regarded by his opponents as an absolute authority, he tried to make it captive for his own gospel. Paul’s use of themes from the Hebrew Scriptures Marinko Vidović 77 59 E. Jodar, “Leviticus 18:5 and the Law’s Call to Faith: A Positive Reassessment of Paul’s View of the Law”, Themelios 45:1 (2020), pp. 43–57. (2003) offers an overview of the way in which Paul depicts Abraham in Galatians as a person showing the kind of faith that he expects of the Galatians. Matthias Konradt 78 60 J.S. DeRouchie, “The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12: A Redemptive-Historical Reassessment”, Themelios 45:2 (2020), pp. 240–259. (2005) links Paul’s view of Abraham in Galatians to a tendency in Hellenistic Judaism (in particular, Philo) to interpret Abraham in a more inclusive sense. In Philo, one also finds a relativisation of physical descendance from Abraham. Karin B. Neutel 79 61 J.R. Wisdom, Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law: Paul’s Citation of Genesis and Deuteronomy in Gal 3.8–10 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.133, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157176-3 (2010) explains the way in which Paul understands Abraham as universal ancestor in Galatians as follows: Through Christ’s death and resurrection a new era has been inaugurated in which God does not distinguish between Jews and Gentiles anymore. Access to God is thus universal and both Jews and Gentiles are God’s children. Oda Wischmeyer 80 62 M. Silva, “Abraham, Faith, and Works: Paul’s Use of Scripture in Galatians 3:6–14”, The Westminster Theological Journal 63:2 (2001), pp. 251–267. (2010) proposes that Paul did not link Abraham primarily to the history of Israel but rather viewed him as an exemplary figure in a general anthropological sense: the human being whose relationship to God was constituted by faith. G.N. Toryough and S.O. Okanlawon 81 63 A.H. Wakefield, Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul’s Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3:1–14 (Academia Biblica 14, Atlanta GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). (2014) argue that, in the light of Genesis 12:1–3, the blessing that Paul refers to in vv. 13–14 should be understood in a spiritual and not a material sense as many prosperity preachers tend to interpret it. It refers to childhood of God. Young Namgung 82 64 M. Bachmann, “Zur Argumentation von Galater 3.10–12”, New Testament Studies 53:4 (2007), pp. 524–544. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688507000264 Also available in: M. Bachmann, Von Paulus zur Apokalypse – und weiter: Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Neuen Testament (samt englischsprachigen Summaries) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 91, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 185‑205. (2018) opts for the traditional interpretation of v. 10, thus disagreeing with proposals made by scholars who opt for the New Perspective on Paul. Namgung supports this choice by focusing in particular on echoes to Isaiah 52:13–53:12 in this verse. Jared M. August 83 65 M. Silva, “Galatians”, in: G. Beale and D. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2007), pp. 785–810. (2019) tries to identify the promises that Paul referred to in 3:8 and 3:16. August thinks that the syntax and the theme indicate that Paul had Genesis 22:18 in mind.

4.2 Social-scientific approaches

Seung Moo Lee published three studies on this pericope. In the first one, Lee 84 66 S. Grindheim, “Apostate Turned Prophet: Paul’s Prophetic Self-Understanding and Prophetic Hermeneutic with Special Reference to Galatians 3.10–12”, New Testament Studies 53:4 (2007), pp. 545–565. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688507000276 (2012) argues that Paul stresses the Galatians’ experiences of the Spirit and the promise of the Spirit in this pericope in order to resolve the conflict in the congregations and to let them return to his gospel. In the second one, Lee 85 67 S. Moyise, Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New (London: T & T Clark, 2008), pp. 63–77. (2017) suggests that Paul mentions Abraham and the blessing of Abraham because he wishes to strengthen the identity of the recipients. Only by remaining in Christ will they be Abraham’s offspring. In a third contribution, Lee 86 68 J.-N. Aletti, “L’argumentation de Ga 3,10–14, une fois encore: Difficultés et propositions”, Biblica 92:2 (2011), pp. 182–203. Also available in English in: J.-N. Aletti, New Approaches for Interpreting the Letters of Saint Paul: Collected Essays: Rhetoric, Soteriology, Christology and Ecclesiology: Translated from the French by Peggy Manning Meyer (Subsidia Biblica 43, Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2012), pp. 237‑260. (2020) proposes that Paul encourages the Galatians in v. 14 to internalise the promises of the Spirit rather than the message proclaimed by his opponents. F. Manjewa M’bwangi 87 69 D. Batovici, “A Few Notes on the Use of the Scripture in Galatians”, Sacra Scripta: Journal of the Centre for Biblical Studies 11:2 (2013), pp. 287‑301. (2020) uses social identity theory to show how Paul constructs a superordinate identity for his group of readers in vv. 1–10, a broad type of identity that includes political, religious and economic facets.

4.3 Rhetorical approaches

Johan S. Vos 88 70 F. Vouga, “Die erste Theologie des Alten Testaments: Gal 3,6–29”, in: J.M. Robker, F. Ueberschaer and T. Wagner (eds.), Text – Textgeschichte – Textwirkung: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Siegfried Kreuzer (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 419, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014), pp. 413–426. (2002) distinguishes between different types of rhetoric/argumentation in Paul’s letters and explains Paul’s rhetorical strategy in each instance in detail. Vv. 11–12 (and Romans 10:5–10) are discussed as examples of juristic rhetoric. Marc Rastoin 89 71 B. Chilton, “The Curse of the Law and the Blessing of Atonement: Paul’s Deployment of Septuagintal Language”, in: W. Kraus, S. Kreuzer, M. Meiser and M. Sigismund (eds.), Die Septuaginta: Text, Wirkung, Rezeption: 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 19.–22. Juli 2012 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.325, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), pp. 597–610. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-152890-3 (2003) draws attention to the way in which Paul makes use of insights from both the Jewish and Greek cultures in order to persuade the Galatians in 3:6–4:7. Rastoin discusses aspects found in this section such as diatribe, synagogal sermons, gezerah shawah and status scripti en voluntatis. Juan Luis Caballero 90 72 M.B. Shepherd, The Text in the Middle (Studies in Biblical Literature 162, New York NY/Bern/Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2014). (2004) uses rhetorical analysis to clarify Paul’s argument in Galatians 3. A Christological thesis forms the centre of the argument and is backed up by Scripture and Paul’s authority (based on revelation). Christopher D. Stanley 91 73 Op. cit., p. 2. (2004) investigates Paul’s “rhetoric of quotations”. In the case of Galatians, Stanley discusses this pericope and 4:21–31 and concludes that the audience that Paul had in mind did not know the Hebrew Scriptures well. They only had a modest knowledge of these Scriptures and Paul adapted his rhetoric to their capabilities. D. Francois Tolmie 92 74 T.G. Gombis, “Arguing with Scripture in Galatia: Galatians 3:10–14 as a Series of ad hoc Arguments ”, in: M.W. Elliott, S.J. Hafemann, N.T. Wright and J. Frederick (eds.), Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 82–90. (2005) offers a text-based rhetorical analysis of Galatians. Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope is summarised as the use of an example and arguments based on the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures to counter the Scriptural arguments of his opponents. Mika Hietanen 93 75 D. Hunn, “Galatians 3:6–9: Abraham’s Fatherhood and Paul’s Conclusions”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 78:3 (2016), pp. 500–514. (2005) provides a pragma-dialectical analysis of 3:1–5:12 and identifies three arguments in this pericope: that the faith of Gentiles is reckoned by God as righteousness, that Christian Gentiles are the offspring of Abraham and that living by faith excludes justification by the law. 94 76 M.C. de Boer, Paul, Theologian of God’s Apocalypse: Essays on Paul and Apocalyptic (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2020), pp. 153–168. Earlier version: M. C. de Boer, “Observations on the Significance of the Old Testament in Galatians”, in: B. Koet, S. Moyise and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maarten J.J. Menken (Novum Testamentum Supplements 148, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill 2013), pp. 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004247727_015 Ernst R. Wendland 95 77 M. Vidović, “Abrahamov Lik u Argumentiranju Spasenja po Vjeri u Poslanici Galaćanima”, Bogoslovska Smotra 73:4 (2003), pp. 533–575. (2014) offers a rhetorical analysis of this passage (focused on oral-aural qualities) which is used as a basis for evaluating the passage in two Chewa Bible translations (1922 and 1988). Wendland also makes suggestions as to how Chewa mother-tongue speakers can be helped to overcome some of the conceptual challenges in the text. Antonio Pitta 96 78 M. Konradt, “‘Die aus Glauben, diese sind Kinder Abrahams’ (Gal 3,7): Erwägungen zum galatischen Konflikt im Lichte frühjüdischer Abrahamtraditionen”, in: G. Gelardini (ed.), Kontexte der Schrift: Band I: Text, Ethik, Judentum und Christentum, Gesellschaft: Ekkehard W. Stegemann zum 60. Geburtstag (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005), pp. 25‑48. (2015) draws attention to mimesis in Galatians. Although it does not occur explicitly, it is found implicitly in 1:13–2:21, 3:5–6 and 4:28–31. This shows that mimesis is very important to Paul in situations where religious identity was in danger.

4.4 Logical analysis

After a thorough discussion of the way in which Aristotelian and Stoic logic functioned in antiquity, Moisé Mayordomo 97 79 K.B. Neutel, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Abraham as Universal Ancestor”, in: M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten and J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2010), pp. 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004216495_020 (2005) discusses three Pauline texts: this pericope, 1 Corinthians 15:12–19 and Romans 1:18–3:20. In each case, the particular text is investigated exegetically before a detailed analysis of its logic is provided. Debbie Hunn 98 80 O. Wischmeyer, “Wie kommt Abraham in den Galaterbrief? Überlegungen zu Gal 3,6–29”, in: M. Bachmann and B. Kollmann (eds.), Umstrittener Galaterbrief: Studien zur Situierung und Theologie des Paulus-Schreibens (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 106, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010), pp. 119–163. (2018) disagrees with scholars who are of the opinion that vv. 13–14 are based on unproven assertions. Instead, Hunn contends that Paul’s argument is based on common grounds and that logically it made and still makes sense.

5. Theological issues

5.1 God

François Vouga 99 81 G.N. Toryough and S.O. Okanlawon, “The Blessing of Abraham: Seeking an Interpretive Link between Genesis 12:1–3 and Galatians 3:13–16”, Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies 4:1 (2014), pp. 123–136. (2015) focuses on the paradox of the visible revelation of an invisible God. According to Vouga, the cross is a visible revelation of an invisible God and of the invisible identity of the human being – a thought that Vouga finds best expressed in vv. 10–14.

5.2 Pneumatology

Peter Dschulnigg 100 82 Y. Namgung, “What Isaiah Has to Say About the Curse of the Law in Galatians 3:10”, Neotestamentica 52:1 (2018), pp. 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1353/neo.2018.0007 (2001) offers a detailed discussion of all 18 instances of the term “spirit” in Galatians. In the case of 3:14, 4:6, 29 and 5:5, Dschulnigg focuses on the way in which Paul further develops the notion of the Spirit in the letter in the light of the cross, promise, childhood of God and justification. According to Jeremy W. Barrier 101 83 J.M. August, “Paul’s View of Abraham’s Faith: Genesis 22:18 in Galatians 3”, Bibliotheca Sacra 176:701 (2019), pp. 51–61. (2014), the interpretative leap that Paul makes in 3:14–16 when he links the promised “seed” of Abraham to the Galatians’ experience of the Spirit makes sense if one realises that Paul uses a physiological medical metaphor based on contemporary notions of how the “spirit” functioned in the human body.

5.3 Israel, covenant and Abraham

William J. Dumbrell 102 84 S.M. Lee, “‘Experiences in Receiving the Spirit’ of the Galatian Community and the Object of ‘The Promise of the Spirit’”, 신약논단 19:4 (2012), pp. 1173–1207. (2000) reads vv. 1–14 from the perspective of the covenant. It shows that in Christ, God established a new covenant and a new form of forgiveness. All who kept on relying on obedience to the law, thinking that they were thereby staying in the covenant, fell under the curse of the law. In an investigation of Paul’s theology of Israel, Richard H. Bell 103 85 S.M. Lee, “‘The Blessing of Abraham’ and Christ in Galatians 3:14a”, 신약논단 24:4 (2017), pp. 925–952. (2005) considers Galatians 3 and 4 as well as 6:17. Bell finds evidence in these parts of the letter that Paul believed that the church, consisting of Gentile and Jewish believers, replaced Israel as God’s people. In a study of law and covenant in Pauline theology, Jason C. Meyer 104 86 S.M. Lee, “The Promise of the Spirit (Galatians 3:14) and the Internalization of the Galatian Christian Community”, 대학과 선교 43 (2020), pp. 35–61. (2009) contends that Paul regarded the Mosaic covenant as essentially non-eschatological, differing from the (eschatologically) new covenant. In Galatians 3–4, Paul highlights the fact that the Mosaic covenant was wrongly understood as still having a soteriological function after it was divinely terminated. Scott W. Hahn 105 87 F.M. M’bwangi, “Paul and Identity Construction in Early Christianity and the Roman Empire”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 76:4 (2020), pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i4.5652 (2009) investigates the covenant in Scripture from a canonical perspective. With regard to Galatians 3 and 4, Hahn states: “Paul argues for the priority and primacy of the Abrahamic covenant — rather than the Mosaic — as the foundational covenant with Israel and ultimately with all mankind. … In contrast to the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant — at least as renewed after the golden calf and other rebellions — is secondary and subordinate in Paul’s eyes.” 106 88 J.S. Vos, Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus: Studien zur antiken Rhetorik (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.149, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157227-2 Earlier versions of the contributions on Galatians: J.S. Vos, “Die Argumentation des Paulus in Galater 1,1–2,10”, in: J. Lambrecht (ed.), The Truth of the Gospel (Galatians 1:1–4:11) (Benedictina Monographic Series 12, Rome: Benedictina Publishers, 1993), pp. 11–43, J.S. Vos, “Charismatisch en Gevestigd Gezag in de Gemeente: Een Spanningsveld in de Brief van Paulus aan de Galaten”, in: J. Delobel and H.J. de Jonge (eds.), Vroegchristelijke Gemeenten tussen Ideaal en Werkelijkheid (Kampen: Kok, 2001), pp. 30–39, J.S. Vos, “Die hermeneutische Antinomie bei Paulus (Galater 3.11–12; Römer 10.5–10)”, New Testament Studies 38:2 (1992), pp. 254–270, J.S. Vos, “Paulus en de Schrift: Hermeneutiek en Retoriek in Gal 3,6–11”, in: T. Baarda, H.J. de Jonge and M.J.J. Menken (eds.), Jodendom en Vroeg Christendom: Continuïteit en Discontinuïteit (Kampen: Kok, 1991), pp. 63–79. According to Donald Cobb 107 89 M. Rastoin, Tarse et Jérusalem: La double culture de l’apôtre Paul en Galates 3,6–4,7 (Analecta Biblica 152, Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2003). (2015), in Galatians 3 and 4, Paul does not react to the teaching of his opponents by merely opposing law and grace or law and faith as is often claimed. Rather, he reacts to an argument about the covenant by means of an argument about a different covenant. In another study, Cobb 108 90 J.L. Caballero, “La Promesa a Abrahán según Ga 3,1–29”, Scripta Theologica 36:1 (2004), pp. 259–272. (2016) investigates the use of the term διαθήκη (“covenant” or “will”) in Galatians 3–4 and points out its importance in Paul’s theology. The redemption that God offers in Christ was structured by the law and the promises of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and new covenants. Philip la G. du Toit 109 91 C.D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York NY/London: T & T Clark International, 2004), pp. 114–135. See also earlier: C.D. Stanley, “Biblical Quotations as Rhetorical Devices in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians”, in: Society of Biblical Literature: 1998 Seminar Papers: Part Two (Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Series 37, Atlanta GA: Scholars Press, 1998), pp. 700–730. (No editor.) (2018) critically evaluates the Radical New Perspective on Paul as well as the Messianic Judaist approach to Galatians and then highlights the criteria that Paul identifies for membership of the covenant in Galatians 3: a contrast between faith/works and Spirit/flesh and between the old era in the law/new era in Christ. This continues the promise to Abraham, but in a renewed, redrawn fashion. In a study of Paul and the marginalised, Carla Swafford Works 110 92 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 (2020) reads Paul’s references to inheritance from the perspective of the Galatians as a subjugated people whose land the Romans had taken away. For them, the reference to the promises of Abraham and the way in which Paul links it to new life in the Spirit, inheriting the kingdom of God and the dawn of the new creation would indeed have been good news.

5.4 The law

Wolfgang Reinbold 111 93 M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Printing House, 2005). Updated version: M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Library of New Testament Studies 344, London: T & T Clark, 2007). See also: M. Hietanen, “The Argumentation in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9:2 (2007), pp. 99–120. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52342 (2000) is of the opinion that is clear from this pericope (and other Pauline passages) that Paul thought it was possible to keep the law. However, Paul believed that only faith, and not the keeping of the law, could bring about justification. According to Moisés Silva 112 94 See the 2007 version, p. 120. (2001), in Galatians 3, Paul is only critical of the soteriological function of the law. The law merely prepared for Christ’s coming, but it cannot give life. Accordingly, we may not radicalise the distinction between God’s promise and the law. Robert Keith Rapa 113 95 E.R. Wendland, “The Linguistic, Conceptual, and Pragmatic Challenges of Communicating Galatians 3:1–14 in Chewa”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 19 (2014), pp. 58–80. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v33i2S.4 (2001) interprets the expression “works of the law” as referring to legalistic observances of the Jewish law, which were mistakenly believed by Paul’s opponents to be salvific. Martin G. Abegg Jr. 114 96 A. Pitta, “I Gradi della Mimesi nella Lettera ai Galati”, Liber Annuus 65 (2015), pp. 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.LA.4.000113 (2001) discusses the expression “works of the law” in 4QMMT and Paul, arguing that, although it is clear that Paul did not know 4QMMT, the theological issue reflected in 4QMMT in this regard apparently survived intact until the first century CE. Seung Moon Lee 115 97 M. Mayordomo, Argumentiert Paulus logisch? Eine Analyse vor dem Hintergrund antiker Logik (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.188, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157301-9 (2003) is of the opinion that Paul challenged his opponents by arguing that everybody is under the curse of the law, thereby expanding the scope of the curse. In dialogue with recent studies on the term “works of the law”, Michael Bachmann 116 98 D. Hunn, “Galatians 3:13–14: Mere Assertion?”, The Westminster Theological Journal 80:1 (2018), pp. 141–157. (2005) opts for interpreting it as a reference to halakhic regulations. Paul believed that salvation is based on the Christ-event and not on the regulations of the law. Jacqueline C.R. de Roo 117 99 F. Vouga, “La promesse de l’invisibilité: Le paradoxe de la révélation visible du Dieu invisible”, Etudes Theologiques et Religieuses 90:2 (2015), pp. 165–179. https://doi.org/10.3917/etr.0902.0165 (2007) compares the expression “works of the law” at Qumran and in Paul. According to De Roo, at Qumran, it refers to deeds that were done in obedience to God’s law, which were regarded as a means of atonement. In Galatians, however, “works of the law” refers to the works of Abraham, which could not bring about atonement. Paul L. Owen 118 100 P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: J. Eckert, M. Schmidl and H. Steichele (eds.), Pneuma und Gemeinde: Christsein in der Tradition des Paulus und Johannes: Festschrift für Josef Hainz zum 65. Geburtstag (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2001), pp. 15–32. Also available in: P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: B. Kowalski, R. Höffner and J. Verheyden (eds.), Studien zu Einleitungsfragen und zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Gesammelte Aufsätze von Peter Dschulnigg (Biblical Tools and Studies 9, Leuven/Paris/Walpole MA: Peeters, 2010), pp. 355–370. (2007) interprets the genitive (“works of the law”) in Romans and Galatians as a subjective genitive, i.e., as referring to the works brought about by the law (which failed to produce righteousness). Peter Chidolue Onwuka 119 101 J.W. Barrier, “Jesus’ Breath: A Physiological Analysis of πνεῦμα within Paul’s Letter to the Galatians”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37:2 (2014), pp. 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X14554364 (2007) discusses Paul’s views of the law, redemption and freedom in vv. 10–14 and in Romans 7:1–6. In vv. 10–14, Paul argues that the law is not God’s way to righteousness. It only stipulates what should be done but does not provide strength to achieve this and the only solution to this situation is the redemption by Christ. Based on the same section, Vincent M. Smiles 120 102 W.J. Dumbrell, “Abraham and the Abrahamic Covenant in Galatians 3:1–14”, in: P. Bolt and M. Thompson (eds.), The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission (Downers Grove IL: IVP Apollos, 2000), pp. 19–31. (2008) describes Paul’s main problem with the law as its inability to foster obedience. Accordingly, Paul regards it as a curse on humankind. However, this does not mean that he rejects its ongoing value. According to R. Barry Matlock 121 103 R.H. Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.184, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 160–180. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157300-2 (2009), from vv. 10–14 it is clear that Paul thought that the law had a very important role but that it had ended with Christ’s arrival. The actual words of the law were Scripture and the main thing Scripture still revealed was that the law no longer had any significance. Michael Bachmann 122 104 J.C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (NAC Studies in Bible & Theology 6, Nashville TN: Broadman & Holman, 2009), pp. 116–176. (2009) disagrees with explanations of the expression “works of the law” (used in v. 10) as referring to good deeds of people (as Hofius proposes) and instead understands it as referring to halakhot (a set of regulations/boundary markers). Bachmann supports this choice by various texts: Revelation 2:26, T. Levi 19:1–2, 4QMMT C27 and y. Qid 63d). In another study, Bachmann 123 105 S.W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises (Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library, New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2009). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvs32tbq (2010) again argues that the expression is to be interpreted as referring to halakhot distinguishing Jews from Gentiles. Gab-Jon Choi 124 106 Op. cit., p. 276. (2011) offers a hermeneutical-rhetorical analysis of vv. 10–12 in which the reciprocal relationship between the law and faith is highlighted. Michael Morson 125 107 D. Cobb, “Galates 3–4: Une alliance ni abrogée ni modifiée”, La Revue Réformée 275 (2015), pp. 1–30. (2012) defends the interpretation of the expression “works of the law” (used in v. 10) by Luther and Calvin as “good works” against criticism by the New Perspective. Morson finds Luther’s and Calvin’s interpretation of the expression exegetically good and pastorally useful. A. Andrew Das 126 108 D.E. Cobb, “What Paul Says About the Covenants in Galatians 3–4”, Unio cum Christo 2:2 (2016), pp. 173–194. https://doi.org/10.35285/ucc2.2.2016.art10 (2012) disagrees with the widespread notion that the omitted premise in v. 10 is that people are unable to obey the law perfectly. Das provides evidence from Deuteronomy and Second Temple Judaism that such a premise would not have been strange in Paul’s time. Barry F. Parker 127 109 P. la G. du Toit, “Galatians 3 and the Redefinition of the Criteria of Covenant Membership in the New Faith-Era in Christ”, Neotestamentica 52:1 (2018), pp. 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1353/neo.2018.0002 (2013) reads the expression “works of the law” against the background of the Jewish settlement in Asia Minor, arguing that Paul adapted Anatolian notions to serve his own polemic. The expression referred to particular works of the law practised by his opponents and covered (different) practices in Judaism and paganism. Seung Moon Lee 128 110 C.S. Works, The Least of These: Paul and the Marginalized (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2020), pp. 87–107. (2014) notes that Paul links three concepts, “curse”, “blessing” and “promise”, to Christ in vv. 10–14. Furthermore, he puts everyone as well as Christ under the curse in order to restore the peace amongst the Galatians. Debbie Hunn 129 111 W. Reinbold, “Gal 3,6–14 und das Problem der Erfüllbarkeit des Gesetzes bei Paulus”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 91:1–2 (2000), pp. 91–106. (2015) is of the opinion that in order to make sense of Paul’s argument in vv. 10–12, one should realise that his implicit assumption in v. 10 is not that no one can keep the law (the Galatians would not agree with such a view) but that the law either justifies people or condemns them. There is not a third option. Christopher Zoccali 130 112 M. Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2001 [1996], 2nd edition), pp. 187–195. (2015) thinks that Paul’s purpose in vv. 10–12 is to dissuade Gentile believers from accepting proselyte conversion, while he still accepts that the law remains valid for defining Jewish identity. Ben C. Dunson 131 113 R.K. Rapa, The Meaning of “Works of the Law” in Galatians and Romans (Studies in Biblical Literature 31, New York NY: Peter Lang, 2001). (2017) interprets the antithesis between faith and law in v. 12 as a view pertaining only to the question of how people are justified. This verse should thus not be interpreted as implying an absolute antithesis between the Mosaic covenant and grace. Le Chih Hsieh 132 114 M.G. Abegg Jr., “4QMMT, Paul, and ‘Works of the Law’”, in: P. Flint (ed.), The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape and Interpretation (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature, Grand Rapids MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2001), pp. 203–216. (2018) understands the genitive in “works of the law” as a subjective genitive and offers a new interpretation of the expression. According to Hsieh, it refers to the functions of the law or what the law characteristically does. One of the verses that Kent L. Yinger 133 115 S.M. Lee, “Paul’s Debate of ‘the Curse of the Law’ and the Context of the Galatian Community”, 신약논단 10:2 (2003), pp. 421–545. (2019) discusses in a study of perfection in the Biblical tradition is v. 10. According to Yinger, Paul’s aim is to prove that Gentile believers do not have to adopt a Jewish lifestyle in order to be part of God’s people. He is not interested in showing that all people are sinners because they cannot keep the law perfectly.

5.5 Soteriology

According to Peder Borgen 134 116 M. Bachmann, “Keil oder Mikroskop? Zur jüngeren Diskussion um den Ausdruck ‘Werke des Gesetzes’”, in: M. Bachmann and J. Woyke (eds.), (2000), Paul’s main point in vv. 1–14 is: “[T]he fact that Christ Jesus was crucified as a cursed criminal made it evident that those who relied upon this Sinaitic law were themselves under a curse. Thus Christ’s death marked the end of the Sinaitic law and the beginning of the new era when the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles and ‘we’ could receive the promise of the Spirit”. 135

der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.182, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 69–134. Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive: Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem Also available in: M. Bachmann, Von Paulus zur Apokalypse – und weiter: Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Neuen Testament (samt englischsprachigen Summaries) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 91, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 91–160. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157299-9

David Brondos 136 117 J.C.R. de Roo, “Works of the Law” at Qumran and in Paul (New Testament Monographs 13, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007). (2001) summarises Paul’s views about redemption in v. 13 as follows: “[B]y being obedient unto death in seeking the redemption of others, Christ attained that redemption once for all when God responded by raising him, since now exalted in power, he is certain to redeem God’s people from the law’s curse when he comes again.” Moisés Silva 137 118 P.L. Owen, “The ‘Works of the Law’ in Romans and Galatians: A New Defense of the Subjective Genitive”, Journal of Biblical Literature 126:3 (2007), pp. 553–577. https://doi.org/10.2307/27638452 (2004) maintains that if one wishes to explain Paul’s view of justification in Galatians, one cannot escape the fact that there is a contrast between “works of the law” and faith in 2:15–3:25. Silva offers several arguments why one cannot restrict “works of the law” to identity markers and why it is best to understand the expression “faith of Christ” as an objective genitive. Hansoo Lee 138 119 P. Chidolue Onwuka, The Law, Redemption and Freedom in Christ: An Exegetical-Theological Study of Galatians 3,10–14 and Romans 7,1–6 (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 156, Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2007). (2006) interprets the expression “works of the law” as referring to the commandments of the law and argues that v. 10 states that all people continuing to base their salvation on the law are under a curse. Jae Hyun Lee 139 120 V.M. Smiles, “The Blessing of Israel and the ‘Curse of the Law’: A Study of Galatians 3:10–14”, Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 3:1 (2008), pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.6017/scjr.v3i1.1481 (2008) maintains that Paul wishes to contrast the human act of faith and the works of the law in 2:16 and 3:6. One thus cannot accept the argument that Hays offers for the subjective genitive (that Paul wishes to contrast human and divine action). In a discussion of the meaning of the death of Jesus according to this passage, Michael Theobald 140 121 R.B. Matlock, “Helping Paul’s Argument Work? The Curse of Galatians 3.10–14”, in: M. Tait and P. Oakes (eds.), The Torah in the New Testament: Papers Delivered at the Manchester-Lausanne Seminar of June 2008 (2009) stresses the importance of the notion of substitution (“Stellvertretung”): Jesus suffered on our behalf; he gave himself pro nobis – an act embodying God’s love for humankind. John W. Taylor 141

pp. 154–179. (Library of New Testament Studies 401, London: T & T Clark, 2009),

(2012) thinks that scholars tend to interpret the relationship between Gentiles and Jews in Galatians in a wrong way. According to vv. 13–14 (as well as vv. 25–26 and 4:4–7), a mutual independence exists: Gentiles receive the blessing of Abraham, since Jesus liberated the Jews from the curse of the law and Jewish believers receive the Spirit, since Gentiles received the blessings and became children of God. Chee-Chiew Lee 142 122 M. Bachmann, “Was für Praktiken? Zur jüngsten Diskussion um die ἔργα νόμου”, New Testament Studies 55:1 (2009), pp. 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868850900006X Also available in: M. Bachmann, Von Paulus zur Apokalypse – und weiter: Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Neuen Testament (samt englischsprachigen Summaries) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 91, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 207–226. (2013) disagrees with scholars who interpret the blessing to Abraham (mentioned in v. 14) as the Spirit. According to Lee, it refers to justification, and the reception of the Spirit is the proof that one has received justification. Matthias Grebe 143 123 M. Bachmann, “Bemerkungen zur Auslegung zweier Genitivverbindungen des Galaterbriefs: ‘Werke des Gesetzes’ (Gal 2,16 u.ö.) und ‘Israel Gottes’ (Gal 6,16)”, in: M. Bachmann and B. Kollmann (eds.), Umstrittener Galaterbrief: Studien zur Situierung und Theologie des Paulus-Schreibens (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 106, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010), pp. 95–118. Also available in: M. Bachmann, Von Paulus zur Apokalypse – und weiter: Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Neuen Testament (samt englischsprachigen Summaries) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 91, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 277–295. (2015) discusses v. 13 in conversation with Barth, also offering a fresh interpretation. Grebe argues that Paul makes the provocative statement in v. 13 to silence his opponents in Galatia. It implies that all humanity (and not the Father as Barth maintains) judged Christ. Shuji Ota 144 124 G.-J. Choi, “The Reciprocal Relationship between Law and Faith in Galatians 3:10–12”, 신약논단 18:4 (2011), pp. 1145–1181. (2016) draws attention to the foundational role that the faith of Abraham has in Galatians 3 and works out the implications of this insight, in particular the fact that Paul has a holistic view of faith. According to Dong-Su Seo 145 125 M. Morson, “Reformed, Lutheran, and ‘New Perspective’: A Dialogue between Traditions Regarding the Interpretation of ‘Works of the Law’ in Galatians”, Canadian Theological Review 1:2 (2012), pp. 61–67. (2019), Paul’s reference to the blessing of Abraham in vv. 13–14 should be understood in terms of Abraham’s role as the unifying archetype of humankind; in him Jews and Gentiles are united in Christ.

5.6 Ecclesiology

Günther H. Juncker 146 126 A.A. Das, “Galatians 3:10: A ‘Newer Perspective’ on an Omitted Premise”, in: C.W. Skinner and K.R. Iverson (eds.), Unity and Diversity in the Gospels and Paul: Essays in Honor of Frank J. Matera (SBL Early Christianity and Its (2007) interprets “Israel” in Romans 9:6b as referring to the spiritual Israel (i.e., the church) and not to a faithful remnant from Israel. Juncker finds a similar tendency in Paul’s depiction of Abraham as spiritual father in Galatians 3, in the typological interpretations of the patriarchs in Galatians 3 and of Isaac and Ishmael in 4:21–31.

5.7 Missiology

According to Peder Borgen 147

223. Literature 7, Atlanta GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), pp. 203– https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt32bz4b.17

(2018), vv. 1–14 offers us insight into Paul’s perspective as a missionary to the Gentiles. In this passage, Paul distinguishes between two jurisdictions, a Sinaitic one and an Abrahamic one, and uses the expression “in Jesus Christ” to refer to Christ in a collective sense and to the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham that believers now experience.

5.8 Eschatology

According to Scott Hafemann 148 127 B.F. Parker, “‘Works of the Law’ and the Jewish Settlement in Asia Minor”, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 9 (2013), pp. 42–96. (2019), from Galatians 3 and 4 it is clear that Paul thought that the eschatological restoration had dawned in Christ, thus ending the era of the Sinai covenant. However, the two covenants (of the flesh and of the Spirit respectively) would continue until the present evil age comes to an end. Chapter 8: Galatians 3:15–18 A variety of aspects were investigated by scholars, but the issue that received the most attention was Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures and his view of the covenant.

1. Introductory issues

Marc Rastoin 1 128 S.M. Lee, “Christ, the Triple Object of Curses, Blessings, and Promises, and the Galatian Church: Focusing on the Structural Analysis and Social Situation of Galatians 3:10–14”, 한국신약학회 21:4 (2014), pp. 1129‑1162. (2003) explains how Paul makes uses of insights from both the Jewish and Greek cultures in order to persuade the Galatians in 3:6–4:7. Rastoin discusses aspects found in this section such as diatribe, synagogal sermons, gezerah shawah and status scripti en voluntatis. Timothy H. Lim 2 129 D. Hunn, “Galatians 3.10–12: Assumptions and Argumentation”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37:3 (2015), pp. 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X14565571 Jan Lambrecht disagrees with Hunn. See: J. Lambrecht, In Search of Meaning: Collected Notes on the New Testament (2014–2017) (Balti: Scholars’ Press, 2017), pp. 443–448. (2004) clarifies Paul’s statement in v. 15 that a διαθήκη (usually translated as “will”) may not be annulled or added to once it has been ratified by referring to P. Yadin 19, in which a certain Judah transfers all that he owns to his daughter – half of it immediately and the other half after his death. In the light of this example, Lim proposes that one should rather translate διαθήκη as “deed of gift”. Birgit van der Lans 3 130 C. Zoccali, “What’s the Problem with the Law? Jews, Gentiles, and Covenant Identity in Galatians 3:10–12”, Neotestamentica 49:2 (2015), pp. 377–415. https://doi.org/10.1353/neo.2016.0006 (2010) elucidates Paul’s argument on Abraham in Galatians 3 and 4 by means of Jewish texts in which Abraham was regarded as either the father of many nations or as father of the Jews. Bradley Trick 4 131 B.C. Dunson, “‘The Law Evidently Is Not Contrary to Faith’: Galatians and the Republication of the Covenant of Works”, Westminster Theological Journal 79:2 (2017), pp. 243–266. (2016) proposes that Paul’s views of a διαθήκη (“testament” or “covenant”) in Galatians 3–4 are best understood in terms of a Hellenistic testament by which God adopted Abraham, with “children” in 3:7 referring to Jews, “children of promise” in 4:28 referring to Gentiles and “seed” in 3:16 referring to Christ and the union of Gentiles and Jews in Christ in 3:29. Peter J. Tomson 5 132 L.C. Hsieh, “The Works of the Law as the Functions of Law”, Sino-Christian Studies 25 (2018), pp. 7–45. (2017) discusses Paul’s letters as a reliable source for understanding Pharisaism. One of the passages that Tomson investigates is v. 16. According to Tomson, the way in which Paul interprets Scripture serves as evidence of a Pharisaic educational system in the first century CE and confirms that there was a continuity between the Pharisaic movement and the rabbis.

2. Translation issues

David Kuske 6 133 K.L. Yinger, God and Human Wholeness: Perfection in Biblical and Theological tradition (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2019), pp. 93–102. (2000) prefers to interpret the dative in v. 16 (τῷ δὲ Ἀβραάμ; “to/regarding Abraham”) as a dative of reference and suggests the following translation: “When God gave the promises he spoke about Abraham and about his descendant, He did not say ‘descendants,’ referring to many, but he referred to one person, ‘your descendant,’ who is Christ.” 7 134 P. Borgen, “Openly Portrayed as Crucified: Some Observations on Gal 3:1–14”, in: D.G. Horrell and C.M. Tuckett (eds.), Christology, Controversy, and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole (Novum Testamentum Supplements 99, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2000), pp. 345–353. Jan Lambrecht 8 135 Op. cit., p. 351. (2018) discusses Paul’s reasoning in this pericope and critically evaluates the translation of the pericope in the New Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible.

3. Wirkunsgeschichte

J. Mark Beach 9 136 D. Brondos, “The Cross and the Curse: Galatians 3.13 and Paul’s Doctrine of Redemption”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 23:81 (2001), pp. 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X0102308101 Quotation from p. 32. (2009) discusses Calvin’s interpretation of vv. 15–22 and other key texts and its implication for membership of the covenant of grace. Beach believes that it is necessary to accept the dual aspect of covenant membership to remain true to Scripture. Kenneth P. Minkema, Adriaan C. Neele and Allen M. Stanton 10 137 M. Silva, “Faith versus Works of Law in Galatians”, in: D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume II: The Paradoxes of Paul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.181, Tübingen/Grand Rapids MI: Mohr Siebeck/Baker Academic, 2004), pp. 217–248. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157089-6 (2019) published several sermons by Jonathan Edwards that have not been published before; one of which is on v. 16.

4. Interpretative approaches

4.1 Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures

Robby J. Kagarise 11 138 H. Lee, “The Soteriology of Justification and the ‘Works of the Law’ in Galatians”, Shinshin Journal 5 (2006), pp. 89–135 (2000) disagrees with scholars who regard Paul’s use of texts from Genesis in v. 16 as problematic. According to Kagarise, this verse helps one to understand Paul’s view of the covenant, Christ and believers. Paul interprets the seed in the light of the Christ-event as referring to Christ. It is fulfilled in an individual (Christ) but also collectively (in all believers). C. John Collins 12 139 J.H. Lee, “Against Richard B. Hays’s ‘Faith of Jesus Christ’”, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 5 (2008), pp. 51–80. (2003) explains Paul’s argument about “seeds” and “seed” in v. 16 as follows: Paul quoted Genesis 22:18 which referred to an individual person and interpreted it as a Messianic text, referring to Christ. Marinko Vidović 13 140 M. Theobald, “‘Verflucht ist jeder, der am Holz hängt’: Die Deutung des Todes Jesu nach Gal 3,6–14”, Bibel und Kirche 64:3 (2009), pp. 158–165. (2003) offers an overview of the way in which Paul depicts Abraham in Galatians as a person showing the kind of faith that he expects of the Galatians. Sylvia C. Keesmaat 14 141 J.W. Taylor, “The Eschatological Interdependence of Jews and Gentiles in Galatians”, Tyndale Bulletin 63:2 (2012), pp. 291–316. https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.29352 (2004) discusses Paul’s use of the Book of Psalms in Romans and Galatians. In the case of Galatians, Keesmaat discusses two allusions from the Psalms (Psalm 89 in v. 16 and Psalm 143:2 in 2:16). In both cases, Keesmaat finds evidence supporting the notion that Paul viewed Christ as the Messiah, thereby challenging both imperial paganism and nationalistic Judaism. Christian Metzenthin 15 142 C.-C. Lee, The Blessing of Abraham, the Spirit, and Justification in Galatians: Their Relationship and Significance for Understanding Paul’s Theology (Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013). (2007) draws attention to similarities in the interpretation of Scripture between Paul and Qumran. Accordingly, Metzenthin suggests that v. 16 should be viewed as an allusion to Genesis 22:18. Moisés Silva 16 143 M. Grebe, “Jesus Christ: Victim or Victor? Revisiting Galatians 3:13 in Conversation with Karl Barth and Scripture”, Communio Viatorum 57:3 (2015), pp. 240–251. Originally published as: M. Grebe, “Jesus Christ: Victim or Victor? Revisiting Galatians 3:13 in Conversation with Karl Barth and Scripture”, in: H.C. Kim (ed.), Galatians as Examined by Diverse Academics in 2012 (St. Andrews, Scotland) (Hermit Kingdom Studies in (2007) discusses two allusions and all the quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in Galatians. In the case of v. 16, Silva disagrees with scholars criticising or even ridiculing Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scripture. Instead, Silva suggests that Paul is not claiming anything controversial in this verse. He just mentions something that his readers and his opponents already accept. Karin B. Neutel 17

2013), pp. 28–41. Christianity and Judaism 3, Highland Park: The Hermit Kingdom Press,

(2010) explains the way in which Paul understands Abraham as universal ancestor in Galatians as follows: Through Christ’s death and resurrection a new era has been inaugurated in which God does not distinguish between Jews and Gentiles anymore. Access to God is thus universal and both Jews and Gentiles are God’s children. Oda Wischmeyer 18 144 S. Ota, “The Holistic pistis and Abraham’s Faith (Galatians 3)”, Hitotsubashi Journal of Arts & Sciences 57:1 (2016), pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15057/28246 (2010) proposes that Paul did not link Abraham primarily to the history of Israel but rather viewed him as an exemplary figure in a general anthropological sense: the human being whose relationship to God was constituted by faith. According to Maureen W. Yeung 19 145 D.-S. Seo, “The Theological Implications of Abraham as a Prototype of Unification of the Human Race in Light of the Multiracial and Multicultural Context of Galatians 3:14”, 신약논단 26:1 (2019), pp. 177–214. https://doi.org/10.31982/knts.2019.3.26.1.177 (2011), the three paradoxes inherent in the expressions “the seed of Abraham” (3:16, 29), “the law of Christ” (6:2) and “the Israel of God” (6:16) are genuine paradoxes. They were already implicit in the Hebrew Scriptures and Paul merely developed them within his missionary context. Dan Batovici 20 146 G.H. Juncker, “‘Children of Promise’: Spiritual Paternity and Patriarch Typology in Galatians and Romans”, Bulletin for Biblical Research 17:1 (2007), pp. 131–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/26424196 (2013) discusses the function of references to the Hebrew Scriptures in Galatians. Batovici shows that Paul generally uses them as providing proof for his arguments. Sometimes he departs from the original meaning of the quotation and in several cases, he tells believers what to do even if the text that he cites indicates the opposite. According to François Vouga 21 147 P. Borgen, “Perspectives for Mission: Galatians 3:1–14 in Context”, in: D.E. Aune and R. Hvalvik (eds.), The Church and Its Mission in the New Testament and Early Christianity: Essays in Memory of Hans Kvalbein (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.404, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), pp. 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004452787_009 (2014), the way in which the Hebrew Scriptures are interpreted in vv. 6–29 is best described as a first Christian theology of the Old Testament, in particular as a response to the question as to how the law and the prophets should be interpreted from the event of the crucifixion of the Son of God. Michael B. Shepherd 22 148 S.J. Hafemann, Paul: Servant of the New Covenant: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.435, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), pp. 52–89. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157702-4 Updated version of: S.J. Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile of Israel in Galatians 3–4”, in: J.M. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 56, Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 329‑371. (2014) brings together in one volume cases where “the text in the middle” is important, meaning that “the way in which the text is cited has already been anticipated in a previous citation of the original text, thus involving at least three texts (primary, secondary, and tertiary)”. 23 1 M. Rastoin, Tarse et Jérusalem: La double culture de l’apôtre Paul en Galates 3,6–4,7 (Analecta Biblica 152, Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2003) In the case of this pericope, Shepherd explains how this happens in v. 16 (elsewhere also in 3:6, 8, 11, 12, 19 and 4:21–5:1). Jared M. August 24 2 T.H. Lim, “The Legal Nature of Papyrus Yadin 19 and Galatians 3:15”, in: A.J. Avery-Peck, D. Harrington and J. Neusner (eds.), When Judaism and Christianity Began: Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Saldarini: Volume II: Judaism and Christianity in the Beginning (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 85, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2004), pp. 361‑376. (2019) tries to identify the promises that Paul refers to in vv. 8 and 16. August argues that the syntax and the theme highlighted here indicate that Paul had Genesis 22:18 in mind. Martinus C. de Boer 25 3 B. van der Lans, “Belonging To Abraham’s Kin: Genealogical Appeals To Abraham as a Possible Background for Paul’s Abrahamic Argument”, in: M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten and J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill 2010), pp. 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004216495_021 (2020) discusses the status of the text of the Hebrew Scriptures for Paul in Galatians, in particular its value or authority. De Boer believes that Paul selected texts that supported his interpretation of the gospel and that undermined the claims of his opponents. Since the Scripture was regarded by his opponents as an absolute authority, he tried to make it captive for his own gospel.

4.2 Rhetorical analysis

Juan Luis Caballero 26 4 B. Trick, Abrahamic Descent, Testamentary Adoption, and the Law in Galatians: Differentiating Abraham’s Sons, Seed, and Children of Promise (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 169, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2016). (2004) uses rhetorical analysis to clarify Paul’s argument in Galatians 3: a Christological thesis forms the centre of the argument and is backed up by Scripture and Paul’s authority (based on revelation). D. Francois Tolmie 27 5 P.J. Tomson, “Les épîtres de Paul: Une source pour le pharisaïsme historique”, Revue des Études Juives 176:1/2 (2017), pp. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.2143/REJ.176.1.3209395 (2005) offers a text-based rhetorical analysis of Galatians. Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope is summarised as the use of an a minori ad maius argument in order to dissociate covenant and law. Mika Hietanen 28 6 D. Kuske, “Exegetical Brief: Galatians 3:16 Concerning His Seed”, Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 97:2 (2000), pp. 127–128. (2005) performs a pragma-dialectical analysis of 3:1–5:12 and summarises the argument in this pericope by means of two statements: that Abrahamic covenant is superior to the law and that the inheritance comes either from the promise or the law. 29 7 Op. cit., p. 128.

5. Theological issues

5.1 Pneumatology

According to Jeremy W. Barrier 30 8 J. Lambrecht, In Search of Meaning II: Another Year of Reflection on the New Testament (2017–2018) (Beau Bassin: Scholars’ Press, 2018), pp. 313‑319. (2014), the interpretative leap that Paul makes in vv. 14–16 when he links the promised “seed” of Abraham to the Galatians’ experience of the Spirit makes sense if one realises that Paul uses a physiological medical metaphor based on contemporary notions of how the “spirit” functioned in the human body.

5.2 Israel, covenant and Abraham

Scott W. Hahn 31 9 J.M. Beach, “Calvin and the Dual Aspect of Covenant Membership: Galatians 3:15–22 – The Meaning of the ‘“Seed” Is Christ’ – and Other Key Texts”, Mid-America Journal of Theology 20 (2009), pp. 49–73. (2005) disagrees with scholars who interpret διαθήκη (“will” or “covenant”) in v. 15 as “will”. Hahn believes that it refers to the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 12:15–18) and that the covenant oath of the Adeqah is the subtext of Paul’s argument in this pericope. In an investigation of Paul’s theology of Israel, Richard H. Bell 32 10 K.P. Minkema, A.C. Neele and A.M. Stanton (eds.), Sermons by Jonathan Edwards on the Epistle to the Galatians (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2019), pp. 108–119. (2005) considers Galatians 3 and 4 as well as 6:17. Bell finds evidence in these parts of the letter that Paul believed that the church, consisting of Gentile and Jewish believers, replaced Israel as God’s people. Günther H. Juncker 33 11 R.J. Kagarise, “The ‘Seed’ in Galatians 3:16 – A Window to Paul’s Thinking”, Evangelical Journal 18:2 (2000), pp. 67–73. (2007) interprets “Israel” in Romans 9:6b as referring to the spiritual Israel (i.e., the church) and not to a faithful remnant from Israel. Juncker finds a similar tendency in Paul’s depiction of Abraham as spiritual father in Galatians 3, in the typological interpretations of the patriarchs in Galatians 3 and of Isaac and Ishmael in 4:21–31. In a study of law and covenant in Pauline theology, Jason C. Meyer 34 12 C.J. Collins, “Galatians 3:16: What Kind of Exegete Was Paul?”, Tyndale Bulletin 54:1 (2003), pp. 75–86. https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.30224 (2009) contends that Paul regarded the Mosaic covenant as essentially non-eschatological, differing from the (eschatologically) new covenant. In Galatians 3–4, Paul highlights the fact that the Mosaic covenant was wrongly understood as still having a soteriological function after it was divinely terminated. Scott W. Hahn 35 13 M. Vidović, “Abrahamov Lik u Argumentiranju Spasenja po Vjeri u Poslanici Galaćanima”, Bogoslovska Smotra 73:4 (2003), pp. 533–575. (2009) investigates the covenant in Scripture from a canonical perspective. With regard to Galatians 3 and 4, Hahn states: “Paul argues for the priority and primacy of the Abrahamic covenant — rather than the Mosaic — as the foundational covenant with Israel and ultimately with all mankind. … In contrast to the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant — at least as renewed after the golden calf and other rebellions — is secondary and subordinate in Paul’s eyes.” 36 14 S.C. Keesmaat, “The Psalms in Romans and Galatians”, in: S. Moyise and M.J.J. Menken (eds.), The Psalms in the New Testament (The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel, New York NY/London: T & T Clark: Continuum, 2004), pp. 139–161. Božidar Mrakovčić 37 15 C. Metzenthin, “Abraham in der Damaskusschrift und im Galaterbrief: Vergleichende Überlegungen zur Schriftauslegung”, Biblische Notizen 134 (2007), pp. 79–103. (2010) discusses Paul’s view of the covenant as found in this pericope and in 4:21–31. Mrakovčić draws attention to the fact that Paul referred to the covenant as part of an argument defending his views on justification. His opponents regarded keeping the law a condition for participation in the covenant – something that was completely unacceptable to him. Jason S. DeRouchie and Jason C. Meyer 38 16 M. Silva, “Galatians”, in: G. Beale and D. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2007), pp. 785–810. (2010) disagree with N.T. Wright, who interprets “seed” in v. 16 as referring not to the Messiah but to the united family of God. According to them, Paul emphasises the coming of Christ as the “seed” of Abraham, a fact that does not gets its rightful place in Wright’s interpretation. William B. Barcley 39 17 K.B. Neutel, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Abraham as Universal Ancestor”, in: M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten and J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2010), pp. 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004216495_020 (2010) notes that scholars tend to find a stark contrast between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants in vv. 15–22 but contends that one should focus on the Christocentric nature of this passage. Then the unity and continuity in God’s dealings become clear. Jeffrey J. Niehaus 40 18 O. Wischmeyer, “Wie kommt Abraham in den Galaterbrief? Überlegungen zu Gal 3,6–29”, in: M. Bachmann and B. Kollmann (eds.), Umstrittener Galaterbrief: Studien zur Situierung und Theologie des Paulus-Schreibens (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 106, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010), pp. 119–163. (2013) disagrees with scholars who find two different covenants in Genesis 15 and 17. According to Niehaus, the two chapters refer to the same covenant – a notion that amongst others is confirmed by Paul’s depiction of the covenant in Galatians 3. According to Donald Cobb 41 19 M.W. Yeung, “Old Testament Paradoxes in Galatians: Rethinking the Theology of Galatians”, in: J.C. Laansma, G.R. Osborne and R.F. van Neste (eds.), New Testament Theology in Light of the Church’s Mission: Essays in Honor of I. Howard Marshall (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2011), pp. 213–228. (2015), in Galatians 3 and 4, Paul does not react against the teaching of his opponents by simply opposing law and grace or law and faith as is often claimed. He rather reacts to an argument about the covenant by means of an argument about a different covenant. In another study, Cobb 42 20 D. Batovici, “A Few Notes on the Use of the Scripture in Galatians”, Sacra Scripta: Journal of the Centre for Biblical Studies 11:2 (2013), pp. 287‑301. (2016) investigates the use of the term διαθήκη (“covenant” or “will”) in Galatians 3–4 and points out its importance in Paul’s theology. For Paul, the redemption that God offers in Christ was structured by the law and the promises of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and new covenants. Shuji Ota 43 21 F. Vouga, “Die erste Theologie des Alten Testaments: Gal 3,6–29”, in: J.M. Robker, F. Ueberschaer and T. Wagner (eds.), Text – Textgeschichte (2016) draws attention to the foundational role that the faith of Abraham plays in Galatians 3 and works out the implications of this insight, in particular that Paul has a holistic view of faith. Philip la G. du Toit 44

(Alter Orient und Altes Testament 419, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014), pp. 413–426. – Textwirkung: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Siegfried Kreuzer

(2018) critically evaluates the Radical New Perspective on Paul as well as the Messianic Judaist approach to Galatians and then highlights the criteria that Paul identifies for membership of the covenant in Galatians 3: a contrast between faith/works and Spirit/flesh and between the old era in the law/new era in Christ. This continues the promise to Abraham, but in a renewed, redrawn fashion. According to Scott J. Hafemann 45 22 M.B. Shepherd, The Text in the Middle (Studies in Biblical Literature 162, New York NY/Bern/Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2014). (2019), from Galatians 3 and 4 it is clear that Paul thought that the eschatological restoration had dawned in Christ, thus ending the era of the Sinai covenant. However, the two covenants (of the flesh and of the Spirit respectively) would continue until the present evil age comes to an end. Miguel J. Echevarria Jr. 46 23 Op. cit., p. 2. (2019) discusses the notion of inheritance in Paul’s letters. In the case of Galatians, Echevarria thinks that Paul uses the term “promise” to refer to the land promised to Abraham and his offspring but that he understands it as referring eschatologically to the entire world that still is to come and that his views in this regard thus differ from later Jewish views on the matter. In a study of Paul and the marginalised, Carla Swafford Works 47 24 J.M. August, “Paul’s View of Abraham’s Faith: Genesis 22:18 in Galatians 3”, Bibliotheca Sacra 176:701 (2019), pp. 51–61. (2020) reads Paul’s references to inheritance from the perspective of the Galatians as a subjugated people whose land the Romans had taken away. For them, the reference to the promises of Abraham and the way in which Paul links these to new life in the Spirit, inheriting the kingdom of God and the dawn of the new creation would indeed have been good news.

5.3 Law

According to Moisés Silva 48 25 M.C. de Boer, Paul, Theologian of God’s Apocalypse: Essays on Paul and Apocalyptic (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2020), pp. 153–168. See also the earlier version: M. C. de Boer, “Observations on the Significance of the Old Testament in Galatians”, in: B. Koet, S. Moyise and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maarten J.J. Menken (Novum Testamentum Supplements 148, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill 2013), pp. 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004247727_015 (2001), in Galatians 3, Paul is only critical of the soteriological function of the law. Paul thought that the law merely prepared for Christ’s coming but cannot give life. Accordingly, we may not radicalise the distinction between God’s promise and the law.

5.4 Soteriology

Moisés Silva 49 26 J.L. Caballero, “La Promesa a Abrahán según Ga 3,1–29”, Scripta Theologica 36:1 (2004), pp. 259–272. (2004) maintains that if one wishes to explain Paul’s view of justification in Galatians, one cannot escape the fact that there is a contrast between “works of the law” and faith in 2:15–3:25. Silva offers several arguments why one cannot restrict “works of the law” to identity markers and why it is best to understand the expression “faith of Christ” as an objective genitive. Jason Maston (2012) 50 27 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 disagrees with scholars who are of the opinion that Paul’s apocalyptic theology in Galatians implies the absence of salvation history. Maston detects a notion of salvation history underlying 3:15–4:7, according to which the period of the law is portrayed as a period of “Unheil”. Chapter 9: Galatians 3:19–25 The issues in this pericope that received the most attention were Paul’s view of law and the metaphor that he uses to describe the function of the law.

1. Introductory issues

1.1 Opponents

Karl Olav Sandnes 1 28 M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Printing House, 2005). Updated version: M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Library of New Testament Studies 344, London: T & T Clark, 2007). See also: M. Hietanen, “The Argumentation in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9:2 (2007), pp. 99–120. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52342 (2018) uses mirror-reading to determine what Paul’s opponents objected to with regard to his view of the law and why they did so. Sandnes identifies three embedded dictas in Galatians, reflecting the views of the opponents, one of which comes from this pericope. According to v. 21, Paul believed that the law was opposed to the promises of God. (The other two are found in 2:17 and 5:11.)

1.2 Background

Hindy Najman 2 29 See the 2007 version, p. 127. (2000) discusses the Second Temple background of the tradition that angels played a role at Sinai. Such an idea was widespread in Rabbinic texts, but there were also some Rabbinic texts rejecting the idea of angelic mediation at Sinai. Christopher R. Bruno 3 30 J.W. Barrier, “Jesus’ Breath: A Physiological Analysis of πνεῦμα within Paul’s Letter to the Galatians”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37:2 (2014), pp. 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X14554364 (2013) traces the Jewish background of the phrase “God is one” (used in v. 20 and Romans 3:30). Bruno finds that in Jewish literature the phrase normally functioned as a boundary marker (Zechariah 14:9 is an exception) and that Paul uses it in a different way, as the basis for the notion of the unity of Jews and Gentiles, which might imply that Zechariah 14:9 may have served as the background of Paul’s reference to God in v. 20. Stefan Nordgaard 4 31 S.W. Hahn, “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah: διαθήκη in Galatians 3:15–18”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67:1 (2005), pp. 79–100. (2014) interprets Paul’s view of the law reflected in vv. 19–20 as follows: God commissioned a group of angels to ordain the law. God was thus behind the law, but he was neither responsible for nor attached to it. According to Nordgaard, there is some similarity between Paul’s views on the law in these verses and Philo’s views on the origin of sin. Bradley Trick 5 32 R.H. Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament (2016) proposes that Paul’s views of a διαθήκη (“testament” or “covenant”) in Galatians 3–4 are best understood in terms of a Hellenistic testament by which God adopted Abraham, with “children” in 3:7 referring to Jews, “children of promise” in 4:28 referring to Gentiles and “seed” in 3:16 referring to Christ and the union of Gentiles and Jews in Christ in 3:29.

2. Text-critical, linguistic, stylistic and translation issues

2.1 Text-critical issues

Jason A. Staples 6

1.184, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 160–180. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157300-2

(2015) explains the text-critical alternative “deeds” instead of “transgressions” in v. 19a as “1) an orthodox corruption to exclude Marcionite and other demiurgic interpretations and 2) an important example of an early Latin harmonization impacting the readings of P46 and other early manuscripts”. 7 33 G.H. Juncker, “‘Children of Promise’: Spiritual Paternity and Patriarch Typology in Galatians and Romans”, Bulletin for Biblical Research 17:1 (2007), pp. 131–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/26424196

2.2 Linguistic issues

Waldemar Rakocy 8 34 J.C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (NAC Studies in Bible & Theology 6, Nashville TN: Broadman & Holman, 2009), pp. 116–176. (2013) argues that if one compares the term διατάσσω (“ordain”) in v. 19 to its use in other Greek sources, it is clear that Paul ascribes more competences to the angels than were normally assumed in Judaism. According to this verse, they did not merely play a mediating role but were themselves responsible for administering the law, as well as its shape. It was also their initiative to instruct humanity by means of the law. Peter von der Osten-Sacken 9 35 S.W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises (Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library, New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2009). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvs32tbq (2014) discusses Paul’s use of μὴ γένοιτο (“not at all”) as a rhetorical formula in Romans and also draws attention to the way the expression is used in Galatians (similar to its use in Romans). In 2:17, Paul uses it when rejecting a wrong interpretation of the gospel by referring to the way in which a believer’s life is changed by baptism and in 3:21, when denying that promise and law should be viewed as opposing each other.

2.3 Stylistic issues

Metaphor Several scholars made contributions on the παιδαγωγός (“pedagogue”) metaphor in this pericope: J.C. O’Neill 10 36 Op. cit., p. 276. (2001) discusses the references to pedagogues in 1 Corinthians 4:15 and in this pericope in terms of the ways in which Hellenistic and Jewish moralists used this family institution metaphorically. In v. 24, Paul uses it to depict the Jewish law as guiding Israel towards Christ and in v. 25, to portray it as imprinting God’s law on people’s hearts. Sam Tsang 11 37 B. Mrakovčić, “Savez u Poslanici Galaćanima”, Bogoslovska Motra 80:1 (2010), pp. 275–296. (2005) discusses the term pedagogue as a servile metaphor and argues that Paul emphasises the temporary nature of the law. It thus only had a function until Christ came. According to Dieter Sänger 12 38 J.S. DeRouchie and J.C. Meyer, “Christ or Family as the ‘Seed’ of Promise? An Evaluation of N.T. Wright on Galatians 3:16”, The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 14:3 (2010), pp. 36–48. (2006), the argumentative style, antithetic structure and broader context within which the pedagogue metaphor is used in Galatians makes it clear that the law is not depicted in a positive sense. It is portrayed as a “Bewahrer” (guard) rather than as a “Bewacher” (guardian). Michael J. Smith 13 39 W.B. Barcley, “The Law and the Promise: God’s Covenant with Abraham in Pauline Perspective”, in: S.A. Hunt (ed.), Perspectives on Our Father Abraham: Essays in Honor of Marvin R. Wilson (Grand Rapids MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010), pp. 138–152. (2006) discusses the cultural background of the pedagogue metaphor. According to Smith, Paul uses it in Galatians for two purposes: to highlight the temporary role of the law (that of a strict guardian) and to indicate that it prevented Israel from being contaminated by the religions of the Gentiles. Craig A. Evans 14 40 J.J. Niehaus, “God’s Covenant with Abraham”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56:2 (2013), pp. 249–271. (2008) cites examples from the Graeco-Roman world where pedagogues are depicted as protecting the financial and legal interests of minors. Evans also notes that Plutarch referred to the law as a pedagogue. Christian Laes 15 41 D. Cobb, “Galates 3–4: Une alliance ni abrogée ni modifiée”, La Revue Réformée 275 (2015), pp. 1–30. (2009) investigates 23 Greek inscriptions mentioning pedagogues and finds that they were usually slaves, that they usually stayed in contact with the children they tended to even after the children had reached adulthood, that some of these children in later life expressed their gratitude for the services rendered by the pedagogues, that pedagogues took pride in their jobs and that the term eventually took on the meaning of instructor/teacher. Wilfried Eisele 16 42 D.E. Cobb, “What Paul Says About the Covenants in Galatians 3–4”, Unio cum Christo 2:2 (2016), pp. 173–194. https://doi.org/10.35285/ucc2.2.2016.art10 (2012) draws attention to the development of Paul’s notion of the pedagogue in the Pauline tradition. In this pericope, the law is depicted as a good educator that has fulfilled its role successfully. In later developments in the Pauline tradition, grace is also depicted as an educator (in Titus 2:11–14). Furthermore, Eisele discusses the similarities and differences in the way in which the law and grace are depicted as educators. Other stylistic issues Shinobu Yoshida 17 43 S. Ota, “The Holistic pistis and Abraham’s Faith (Galatians 3)”, Hitotsubashi Journal of Arts & Sciences 57:1 (2016), pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15057/28246 (2019) focuses on Paul’s use of first and second person pronouns in vv. 25–26 and 4:6. In both instances “you” refers to the recipients (as Gentile believers), but “our” in “our hearts” in 4:6 refers to both Jewish and Gentile believers.

2.4 Translation issues

Gregory Vall 18 44 P. la G. du Toit, “Galatians 3 and the Redefinition of the Criteria of Covenant Membership in the New Faith-Era in Christ”, Neotestamentica 52:1 (2018), pp. 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1353/neo.2018.0002 (2003) examines the translation of the terms υἱός (“son”) and υἱοθεσία (“adoption”) in 3:23–4:7 in the NRSV and argues that the inaccurate translation of these terms can only be rectified if one stops trying to avoid male-orientated language in a translation. Jonathan E.T. Kuworno-Adjaottor 19 45 S.J. Hafemann, Paul: Servant of the New Covenant: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.435, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), pp. 52–89. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157702-4 Updated version of: S.J. Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile of Israel in Galatians 3–4”, in: J.M. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 56, Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 329‑371. (2012) discusses the way in which the phrase παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν (“was our pedagogue towards/until Christ”) in v. 24 is rendered in Dangme translations of the Bible. Kuworno-Adjaottor points out that the full meaning of the phrase is not conveyed and that this may promote antinomianism amongst the readers. Kuworno-Adjaottor also proposes better ways of translating the phrase into Dangme.

3. Wirkungsgeschichte

According to S.M. Baugh 20 46 M.G. Echevarria Jr., The Future Inheritance of Land in the Pauline Epistles (Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, 2019), pp. 104–140. (2004), v. 20 supports the Reformed view of the pactum salutis, the covenant of redemption, in particular of an intratrinitarian arrangement, something that Moses could not mediate, since God is one. J. Mark Beach 21 47 C.S. Works, The Least of These: Paul and the Marginalized (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2020), pp. 87–107. (2009) discusses Calvin’s interpretation of vv. 15–22 and other key texts and its implication for membership of the covenant of grace. Beach believes that it is necessary to accept the dual aspect of covenant membership to remain true to Scripture. Sotirios Despotis 22 48 M. Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2001 [1996], 2nd edition), pp. 187–195. (2017) offers an Eastern-Orthodox reading of vv. 23–29 (and also of vv. 6–9) based on the interpretation of John Chrysostom. Despotis shows that Chrysostom’s interpretation had a solid exegetical basis. Timothy Mashcke 23 49 M. Silva, “Faith versus Works of Law in Galatians”, in: D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume II: The Paradoxes of Paul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.181, Tübingen/Grand Rapids MI: Mohr Siebeck/Baker Academic, 2004), pp. 217–248. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157089-6 (2017) discusses Luther’s comments on angelic mediators in Galatians 3, placing them in historical context. One of the examples that Ellen T. Charry 24 50 J. Maston, “The Nature of Salvation History in Galatians”, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 2:2 (2012), pp. 89–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/26426549 (2020) uses to illustrate the danger of anti-Jewish attitudes in Christian preaching (and how to avoid it) is a recent sermon on vv. 23–29.

4. Interpretative approaches

4.1 Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures

According to Raik Heckl 25 1 K.O. Sandnes, Paul Perceived: An Interactionist Perspective on Paul and the Law (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.412, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), pp. 55–91. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-156102-3 (2003), Paul’s statement in v. 21b (“If a law had been given that could make alive …”) seems to allude to Deuteronomy 6:24–25, where life and justice are linked to the observance of the law. Karin B. Neutel 26 2 H. Najman, “Angels at Sinai: Exegesis, Theology and Interpretive Authority”, Dead Sea Discoveries 7:3 (2000), pp. 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1163/156851700509977 (2010) explains the way in which Paul understands Abraham as universal ancestor in Galatians as follows: Through Christ’s death and resurrection a new era has been inaugurated in which God no longer distinguishes between Jews and Gentiles. Access to God is thus universal and both Jews and Gentiles are God’s children. Dan Batovici 27 3 C.R. Bruno, “God Is One”: The Function of eis ho theos as a Ground for Gentile Inclusion in Paul’s Letters (Library of New Testament Studies 497, London: Bloomsbury/T & T Clark, 2013), pp. 162–197. (2013) discusses the function of references to the Hebrew Scriptures in Galatians. Batovici shows that Paul generally uses them as providing proof for his arguments. Sometimes he departs from the original meaning of the quotation and in several cases, he tells believers what to do even if the text that he cites indicates the opposite. Michael B. Shepherd 28 4 S. Nordgaard, “Paul and the Provenance of the Law: The Case of Galatians 3,19–20”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 105:1 (2014), pp. 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1515/znw-2014-0004 (2014) brings together in one volume cases where “the text in the middle” is important, meaning that “the way in which the text is cited has already been anticipated in a previous citation of the original text, thus involving at least three texts (primary, secondary, and tertiary)”. 29 5 B. Trick, Abrahamic Descent, Testamentary Adoption, and the Law in Galatians: Differentiating Abraham’s Sons, Seed, and Children of Promise (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 169, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2016). In the case of Galatians, Shepherd offers an overview of how this happens in v. 19 (as well as in vv. 6, 8, 11, 12, 16 and 4:21–5:1). According to J. Thomas Hewitt 30 6 J.A. Staples, “Altered Because of Transgressions? The ‘Law of Deeds’ in Gal 3,19a”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 106:1 (2015), pp. 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1515/znw-2015-0007 (2019), the expression ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ τό σπέρμα (“until the offspring would come”) in v. 19 should be understood as a reappropriation of Genesis 49:10 – words that were often interpreted as Davidic/Messianic. It thus makes sense that Paul applied it to Christ. Linda L. Belleville 31 7 Op. cit., p. 127. (2019) believes that the notion that the law was ordained through angels and by the hand of a mediator was so strongly entrenched in Sinai traditions that one should assume that they were echoes of Scripture. Furthermore, that Paul did not explain these statements when he introduced them in the letter should be taken as an indication that he assumed that his readers would be familiar with such notions.

4.2 Rhetorical analysis

L. Ann Jervis 32 8 W. Rakocy, “Znaczenie Czasownika διατάσσω w Źródłach Biblijnych: W Nawiązaniu do διαταγεὶς διʼ ἀγγέλων w Ga 3,19b”, The Biblical Annals 3:2 (2013), pp. 383–419. (2000) explains Paul’s rhetoric in this pericope in terms of an argument based on God’s faithfulness: God placed functional and temporal limits on the law, according to his redemptive plan. Mika Hietanen 33 9 P. von der Osten-Sacken, Der Gott der Hoffnung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Theologie des Paulus (Studien zu Kirche und Israel: Neue Folge 3, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014), pp. 217–245. (2005) provides a pragma-dialectical analysis of 3:1–5:12 and identifies two arguments in this pericope: the inferiority of the law to the gospel and that a law has not been given that can make people alive and thus righteousness does not come through the law. 34 10 J.C. O’Neill, “Pedagogues in the Pauline Corpus (1 Corinthians 4.15; Galatians 3.24, 25)”, Irish Biblical Studies 23:2 (2001), pp. 50–65. D. Francois Tolmie 35 11 S. Tsang, From Slaves to Sons: A New Rhetoric Analysis on Paul’s Slave Metaphors in His Letter to the Galatians (Studies in Biblical Literature 81, New York NY: Peter Lang, 2005), pp. 105–115. (2005) offers a text-based rhetorical analysis of Galatians. Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope is summarised as explaining the purpose of the law in such a way as to emphasise its inferiority. In another contribution, Tolmie 36 12 D. Sänger, “‘Das Gesetz ist unser παιδαγωγός geworden bis zu Christus’ (Gal 3,24)”, in: D. Sänger and M. Konradt (eds.), Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im Neuen Testament: Festschrift für Christoph Burchard zum 75. Geburtstag (Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 57, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht/Academic Press Fribourg, 2006), pp. 236–260. (2011) highlights the rhetorical function of angels in the main letters of Paul. In the case of v. 19, Tolmie believes that Paul refers to the involvement of angels to help him emphasise the inferiority of the law.

4.3 Speech act theory

Pieter Verster 37 13 M.J. Smith, “The Role of the Pedagogue in Galatians”, Bibliotheca Sacra 163:650 (2006), pp. 197–214. (2007) uses speech act theory to distinguish between various types of non-authentic questions in Galatians. This makes it possible to describe the intended effect of each question more accurately. In this instance, v. 19 is classified as an appeal and v. 21 as an emphatic rhetorical interrogative.

5. Theological issues

5.1 God

Suzanne Nicholson 38 14 C.A. Evans, “Paul and the Pagans”, in: S.E. Porter (ed.), Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman (Pauline Studies 5, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2008), pp. 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004171596.i-370.49 (2011) investigates Paul’s three strongest statements on monotheism: v. 20 in this pericope, 1 Corinthians 8:4–6 and Romans 3:30. Nicholson describes the relationship between Christ and God as “dynamic oneness”. In this pericope, Moses is depicted as an inferior mediator to Christ, the mediator of the new covenant, who participates in God’s deity. Marcus Aceituno Donoso 39 15 C. Laes, “Pedagogues in Greek Inscriptions in Hellenistic and Roman Antiquity”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 171 (2009), pp. 113–122. (2014) discusses Paul’s views on the promises of God in vv. 19–22 and 2 Corinthians 1:15–22, highlighting the centrality of God in Paul’s thought, in particular as it is revealed Christologically. Keith L. Johnson 40 16 W. Eisele, “Vom ‘Zuchtmeister Gesetz’ zur ‘erziehenden Gnade’ (Gal 3,24f; Tit 2,11f): Religiöse Erziehung in der Paulustradition”, Biblische Zeitschrift 56:1 (2012), pp. 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1163/25890468-056-01-90000004 (2017) criticises Katherine Sonderegger’s decision to view Scripture through God’s revelation to Moses at the burning bush. According to Johnson, this goes against the approach of Paul, who read Scripture through the lens of the church and its Head, Christ. One of the passages that Johnson selects to illustrate Paul’s approach is vv. 19–20.

5.2 Christology

César Izquierdo 41 17 S. Yoshida, “Consideration of Pronominal Shifts in the Epistle to the Galatians 3:25–26 and 4:6”, 新約学研究 47 (2019), pp. 19–38. (2008) analyses the six texts in the New Testament where the term “mediator” occurs. In the case of v. 19, Izquierdo contends that, although the term does not refer to Christ, it does not exclude the sense of 1 Timothy 2:5, where Christ is depicted as a mediator in the full sense of the word. Eusebio González 42 18 G. Vall, “Inclusive Language and the Equal Dignity of Women and Men in Christ”, The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 67:4 (2003), pp. 579–606. https://doi.org/10.1353/tho.2003.0002 (2017) investigates the same texts and identifies the following characteristics associated with the term “mediator”: uniqueness (of Christ as mediator), universality (Christ being the mediator of all people) and humanity and efficacy (Christ guaranteeing the possibility of a faithful response to God).

5.3 Israel, covenant and Abraham

In an investigation of Paul’s theology of Israel, Richard H. Bell 43 19 J.E.T. Kuwornu-Adjaottor, “The Law as Our Disciplinarian: A Critical Study of Galatians 3:24 in the Dangme Translations of the Bible”, European Scientific Journal 8:24 (2012), pp. 53–64. (2005) considers Galatians 3 and 4 as well as 6:17. Bell finds evidence in these parts of the letter that Paul believed that the church, consisting of Gentile and Jewish believers, replaced Israel as God’s people. Scott W. Hahn 44 20 S.M. Baugh, “Galatians 3:20 and the Covenant of Redemption”, The Westminster Theological Journal 66:1 (2004), pp. 49–70. (2009) draws attention to the covenant in Scripture from a canonical perspective. With regard to Galatians 3 and 4, Hahn states: “Paul argues for the priority and primacy of the Abrahamic covenant — rather than the Mosaic — as the foundational covenant with Israel and ultimately with all mankind. … In contrast to the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant — at least as renewed after the golden calf and other rebellions — is secondary and subordinate in Paul’s eyes.” 45 21 J.M. Beach, “Calvin and the Dual Aspect of Covenant Membership: Galatians 3:15–22 – The Meaning of the ‘“Seed” Is Christ’ – and Other Key Texts”, Mid-America Journal of Theology 20 (2009), pp. 49–73. In a study of law and covenant in Pauline theology, Jason C. Meyer 46 22 S. Despotis, “Eine östlich-orthodoxe Lektüre von Gal. 3,6–9.23–29”, in: A. Despotis (ed.), Participation, Justification, and Conversion: Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Paul and the Debate between “Old and New Perspectives on Paul” (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.442, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), pp. 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-155453-7 (2009) contends that Paul regarded the Mosaic covenant as essentially non-eschatological, differing from the (eschatologically) new covenant. In Galatians 3–4, Paul highlights the fact that the Mosaic covenant was wrongly understood as still having a soteriological function after it was divinely terminated. According to Donald Cobb 47 23 T. Maschke, “Angelic Mediators: Luther’s Comments on Galatians 3 in Historical Context”, Concordia Theological Journal 4:2 (2017), pp. 27–42. (2015), in Galatians 3 and 4, Paul does not react against the teaching of his opponents by merely opposing law and grace or law and faith as is often claimed. He rather reacts to an argument about the covenant by means of an argument about a different covenant. In another study, Cobb 48 24 E.T. Charry, “Awakening to Judaism and Jews in Christian Preaching”, The International Journal of Homiletics 4 (2020), pp. 41–73. (2016) investigates the use of the term διαθήκη (“covenant” or “will”) in Galatians 3–4 and points out its importance in Paul’s theology. The redemption that God offers in Christ was structured by the law and the promises of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and new covenants. Philip la G. du Toit 49 25 R. Heckl, “Ein Bezugstext für Gal 3:21b”, Novum Testamentum 45:3 (2003), pp. 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685360360683280 (2018) critically evaluates the Radical New Perspective on Paul as well as the Messianic Judaist approach to Galatians and then highlights the criteria that Paul identifies for membership of the covenant in Galatians 3: a contrast between faith/works and Spirit/flesh and between the old era in the law/new era in Christ. This continues the promise to Abraham, but in a renewed, redrawn fashion. Miguel G. Echevarria Jr. 50 26 K.B. Neutel, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Abraham as Universal Ancestor”, in: M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten and J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2010), pp. 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004216495_020 (2019) discusses the notion of inheritance in Paul’s letters. In the case of Galatians, Echevarria argues that Paul uses the term “promise” to refer to the land promised to Abraham and his offspring but understands it as referring eschatologically to the entire world that is still to come and that his views in this regard thus differ from later Jewish views on the matter. In a study of Paul and the marginalised, Carla Swafford Works 51 27 D. Batovici, “A Few Notes on the Use of the Scripture in Galatians”, Sacra Scripta: Journal of the Centre for Biblical Studies 11:2 (2013), pp. 287‑301. (2020) reads Paul’s references to inheritance from the perspective of the Galatians as a subjugated people whose land had been taken away by the Romans. For them, the reference to the promises of Abraham and the way in which Paul links them to new life in the Spirit, inheriting the kingdom of God and the dawn of the new creation would indeed have been good news.

5.4 Law

Joel Marcus 52 28 M.B. Shepherd, The Text in the Middle (Studies in Biblical Literature 162, New York NY/Bern/Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2014). (2001) is of the opinion that the expression “under the law” (v. 23) was first used by Paul’s opponents and that he adapted it and used it against them. According to Moisés Silva 53 29 Op. cit., p. 2. (2001), in Galatians 3, Paul is only critical of the soteriological function of the law. The law merely prepared for Christ’s coming, but it cannot give life. Accordingly, one should not radicalise the distinction between God’s promise and the law. In-Gyu Hong 54 30 J.T. Hewitt, “Ancient Messiah Discourse and Paul’s Expression ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ τό σπέρμα in Galatians 3.19”, New Testament Studies 65:3 (2019), pp. 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0028688519000079 (2002) interprets the expression “under the law” in v. 23 as indicative of the enslaving power of the law causing a lack of freedom and an inability to determine one’s own life. Robert L. Brawley 55 31 L.L. Belleville, “The Sinai-μεσίτης Tradition in Galatians 3:19–20”, in: S.E. Porter and C.D. Land (eds.), Paul and Scripture (Pauline Studies 10, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2019), pp. 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391512_016 (2002) contends that Paul believed that without the Abrahamic covenant the Mosaic covenant equalled slavery. He thus synthesised the Mosaic and the Abrahamic covenants, as is clear from his discussion of the law in vv. 19–22 and the interplay between the allegory in 4:21–31 and Isaiah. According to Roland Bergmeier 56 32 L.A. Jervis, “Galatians 3:19–25 as an Argument for God’s Faithfulness: Reading Paul’s Rhetoric in Light of His Strategy”, Word & World 20:3 (2000), pp. 281–298. (2003), in v. 19a, the law is not linked to justification but to transgressions. Its role is thus depicted as that of a caretaker (“Betreuerin”) of Jewish sinners. Todd A. Wilson 57 33 M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Printing House, 2005). Updated version: M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Library of New Testament Studies 344, London: T & T Clark, 2007). See also: M. Hietanen, “The Argumentation in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9:2 (2007), pp. 99–120. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52342 (2005) is of the opinion that Paul used the expression “under the law” (v. 23) as a rhetorical abbreviation for “under the curse of the law”. This implies that cursing plays a much more prominent role in Galatians than is generally recognised. Yaakov Azuelos 58 34 See the 2007 version, p. 134. (2009) points out that in Targum Onkelos, angels are not mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:2–3 (the giving of the law) and argues that the fact that angels are omitted may reflect an awareness that the idea that the angels were mediators could be used to minimise the importance of the law (as Paul does in v. 19). Waldemar Rakocy 59 35 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 (2013) argues that if one compares the term διατάσσω (“ordain”) in 3:19 to its use in other Greek sources it is clear that Paul ascribes more competences to the angels than were normally assumed in Judaism. According to this verse, they did not merely play a mediating role but were themselves responsible for administering the law, as well as its shape. It was also their initiative to instruct humanity by means of the law. In a study of the expression “under the law” in the Pauline epistles (used in v. 23), James D.G. Dunn 60 36 D.F. Tolmie, “Angels as Arguments? The Rhetorical Function of References to Angels in the Main Letters of Paul”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 67:1 (2011), pp. 1–3. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v67i1.825 (2013) points out that most of Paul’s fellow Jews might have regarded it a good position to find themselves in, but that Paul had a different view. For him, it was similar to being “under the elements of the world” from which humankind had to be liberated in order to be “under grace” and be led by the Spirit. Debbie Hunn 61 37 P. Verster, “The Implications of Non-Authentic Questions in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9 (2007), pp. 142–161. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52344 (2013) is of the opinion that the whole pericope addresses the function of the law. Paul first highlights the inferiority of the law to the promise. This leads to his question in v. 21 and the analogy of a jailer and a pedagogue in the rest of the pericope. According to Brian S. Rosner 62 38 S. Nicholson, Dynamic Oneness: The Significance and Flexibility of Paul’s One-God Language (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2011), pp. 105–166. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1cgf4b5 (2013), Paul continually does three things with the law in his letters: he repudiates, replaces and reappropriates it. This also happens in Galatians, in which case he repudiates it in 3:23–25 and 5:18, replaces it in 2:5, 14, 3:23–25, 5:18 and 6:2 and reappropriates it in 4:21–31 (as prophecy) and 5:14 (as wisdom). Paul C. Maxwell 63 39 M. Aceituno Donoso, Las “Promesas de Dios” en San Pablo: Estudio Exegético-Teológico de Gál 3,19–22 y 2 Cor 1,15–22 (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 211, Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2014), pp. 84–128. (2013) disagrees with Krister Stendahl’s view of Paul’s robust conscience. One of the arguments that Maxwell advances is that Stendahl interpreted v. 24 incorrectly. The law did not lose its relevance when the Messiah came. It only stopped imprisoning believers. Stefan Nordgaard 64 40 K.L. Johnson, “Compatibilism and Continuity in Katherine Sonderegger’s Systematic Theology”, International Journal of Systematic Theology 19:2 (2017), pp. 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijst.12176 (2014) interprets Paul’s view on the law reflected in vv. 19–20 as follows: God commissioned a group of angels to ordain the law. God was thus behind the law, but he was neither responsible for nor attached to it. According to Nordgaard, there is some similarity between Paul’s views and Philo’s views on the origin of sin. In an article on vv. 22–23, Debbie Hunn 65 41 C. Izquierdo, “Cristo ‘Mediador’: Perspectiva Bíblica”, Scripta Theologica 40:3 (2008), pp. 695–732. (2015) disagrees with scholars who interpret Paul as saying that the law condemned the world so that Christ would be their only hope. The law rather punished transgressions so that the Abrahamic promise could be received by faith. Rodney Reeves 66 42 E. González, “Cristo Como Mediador (μεσίτης) en el NT”, Scripta Theologica 49:2 (2017), pp. 279–299. https://doi.org/10.15581/006.49.2.279-299 (2015) claims that “Paul saw himself as the mediator of the law of Christ, the ‘new’ Moses of the Abrahamic covenant fulfilled in Christ Jesus. Paul was the one who delivered the gospel to them, and therefore he was the only one appointed by God to interpret the law of Christ for them.” 67 43 R.H. Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.184, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 160–180. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157300-2 Christoph Heil 68 44 S.W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises (Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library, New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2009). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvs32tbq (2016) points out that Paul does not deny the divine establishment of the law but relativises its significance in salvation history. The Galatians had to keep to the promise that came directly from God and not to the law which came to humanity through a twofold mediation (“doppelt vermittelt”). Thomas Johann Bauer 69 45 Op. cit., p. 276. (2017) discusses Paul’s view of Moses. From Paul’s letters, it is clear that he only mentions Moses incidentally and when his argument requires it. In this pericope, Paul downplays Moses’s status because he wants his readers not to keep on practising the law. According to Linda L. Belleville 70 46 J.C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (NAC Studies in Bible & Theology 6, Nashville TN: Broadman & Holman, 2009), pp. 116–176. (2019), Paul’s use of the Sinai-mediator tradition in vv. 19–20 does not indicate the inferiority of the law (as many scholars assume). It rather highlights the weakness of Israel.

5.5 Soteriology

R. Barry Matlock 71 47 D. Cobb, “Galates 3–4: Une alliance ni abrogée ni modifiée”, La Revue Réformée 275 (2015), pp. 1–30. (2000) attempts to detheologise the “faith of Christ” debate by approaching the matter from a lexical semantic perspective. According to Matlock, from such a perspective it is clear that the objective interpretation is to be preferred. Moisés Silva 72 48 D.E. Cobb, “What Paul Says About the Covenants in Galatians 3–4”, Unio cum Christo 2:2 (2016), pp. 173–194. https://doi.org/10.35285/ucc2.2.2016.art10 (2004) maintains that if one wishes to explain Paul’s view of justification in Galatians, one cannot escape the fact that there is a contrast between “works of the law” and faith in 2:15–3:25. Silva offers several arguments why one cannot restrict “works of the law” to identity markers and why it is best to understand the expression “faith of Christ” as an objective genitive. Roy A. Harrisville III 73 49 P. la G. du Toit, “Galatians 3 and the Redefinition of the Criteria of Covenant Membership in the New Faith-Era in Christ”, Neotestamentica 52:1 (2018), pp. 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1353/neo.2018.0002 (2006) draws attention to evidence from pre-Christian Greek authors in whose writings there is an abundance of evidence that it would have been quite normal to interpret “faith of Christ” as an objective genitive and that it would have been regarded as good Greek. One of the arguments used against an objective interpretation of the expression “faith of Christ” is that it creates redundancy. R. Barry Matlock 74 50 M.G. Echevarria Jr., The Future Inheritance of Land in the Pauline Epistles (Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, 2019), pp. 104–140. (2007) evaluates this argument critically by looking at v. 22 (as well as 2:16, Romans 3:22 and Philippians 3:9) and finds that it is not convincing. An objective interpretation is thus to be preferred. In a detailed study of the expression “faith of Christ” in Paul’s letters, Karl Friedrich Ulrichs 75 51 C.S. Works, The Least of These: Paul and the Marginalized (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2020), pp. 87–107. (2007) argues that the issue is more complex than merely choosing between an objective or subjective genitive. By means of the expression, Paul succeeded in integrating various models of justification, the notion of participation in Christ and the perspective that the Spirit was a gift from God. David L. Stubbs 76 52 J. Marcus, “‘Under the Law’: The Background of a Pauline Expression”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63:1 (2001), pp. 72–83. (2008) explains the two patterns of soteriology underlying the subjective and objective interpretations of the expression “faith of Christ” and opts for the subjective interpretation, situating it within a broader view of faith as faithfulness and an emphasis on participation in Christ. Debbie Hunn 77 53 M. Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2001 [1996], 2nd edition), pp. 187–195. (2009) offers a thorough overview of the debate in scholarship on the faithfulness of Christ, since the time of Johannes Hauβleiter and Gerhard Kittel, pointing out that it is difficult to make a choice since both the subjective and objective interpretations of the expression fit the context. Ardel B. Caneday 78 54 I.-G. Hong, “Being ‘under the Law’ in Galatians”, Evangelical Review of Theology 26:4 (2002), pp. 354–372. (2009) highlights the importance of the faithfulness of Christ as theme in Galatians, in particular in terms of the polarity found in the letter between “works of the law” and “faith of Christ”. Christ’s faithfulness achieved what the law could not. R. Barry Matlock 79 55 R.L. Brawley, “Contextuality, Intertextuality, and the Hendiadic Relationship of Promise and Law in Galatians”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 93:1–2 (2002), pp. 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1515/zntw.2002.010 (2009) offers arguments for an objective interpretation of the expression, amongst others the parallel between “faith of Christ” and “works of the law”. Mark A. Seifrid 80 56 R. Bergmeier, “‘Welche Bedeutung kommt dann dem Gesetz zu?’ (Gal 3,19a)”, Theologische Zeitschrift 59:1 (2003), pp. 35–48. https://doi.org/10.5169/seals-877914 (2009) is of the opinion that merely choosing between a subjective and an objective interpretation of the expression does not really solve the problem and that it thus should rather be interpreted as referring to Christ as both the author and the source of one’s faith. Preston M. Sprinkle 81 57 T.A. Wilson, “‘Under Law’ in Galatians: A Pauline Theological Abbreviation”, Journal of Theological Studies 56:2 (2005), pp. 362–392. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/fli108 (2009) also opts for a third alternative: the expression refers to “Christ-faith”, i.e., it is a reference to the gospel regarding the eschatological act that God performed in Christ. Francis Watson 82 58 Y. Azuelos, “my nṯn ’t hṯwrh lyšr”, Beit Mikra 54:2 (2009), pp. 94–104. (2009) is of the opinion that Paul’s formulation “faith of Christ” was based on Habakkuk 2:4, which implies that he referred to faith in the saving acts of God. In a study of the expression “faith of Christ” in Paul’s letters, Eung-Bong Lee 83 59 W. Rakocy, “Znaczenie Czasownika διατάσσω w Źródłach Biblijnych: W Nawiązaniu do διαταγεὶς διʼ ἀγγέλων w Ga 3,19b”, The Biblical Annals 3:2 (2013), pp. 383–419. (2009) rejects the arguments for the objective interpretation of the expression and suggests that it refers to Christ as the one creating faith in believers. Roy A. Harrisville III 84 60 J.D.G. Dunn, “‘Under the Law’”, in: J. Krans, B.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, P.-B. Smit and A.W. Zwiep (eds.), Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer (Novum Testamentum Supplements 149, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2013), pp. 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004250369_005 (2010) suspects supporters of the New Perspective of assuming that faith is not a gift of God and maintains that when Paul contrasts “hearing of faith” and “works of the law” he is contrasting divine gift and human work, not two types of human work. Accordingly, “faith of Christ” refers to faith in Christ. Matthew C. Easter 85 61 D. Hunn, “‘Why Therefore the Law?’ The Role of the Law in Galatians 3:19–20”, Neotestamentica 47:2 (2013), pp. 355–372. (2010) offers an overview of the most important arguments used in the “faith of Christ” debate and points out that the choices that exegetes make are mostly based on the way in which they understand broader issues in Pauline theology and that this broader framework is thus the true setting of the debate. Gab Jong Choi 86 62 B.S. Rosner, Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 31, Downers Grove IL/Nottingham: IVP Academic, 2013). (2011) offers a contextual investigation of 2:15–21, 3:1–29 and 5:2–6, arguing that the expression “faith of Christ” indicates the way in which God’s righteousness is attained and not how God reveals it. The expression should thus be taken in an objective sense. Jason Maston (2012) 87 63 P.C. Maxwell, “Analyzing the Apostle Paul’s ‘Robust Conscience’: Identifying and Engaging the Psychological Concerns of Krister Stendahl’s Inceptive Article”, The Westminster Theological Journal 75:1 (2013), pp. 145–164. disagrees with scholars who are of the opinion that Paul’s apocalyptic theology in Galatians implies the absence of salvation history. Maston detects a notion of salvation history underlying 3:15–4:7 according to which the period of the law is portrayed as a period of “Unheil”. In an investigation of the expression “faith of Christ” in Galatians, as well as the 13 occurrences of “faith” in Galatians 3, Hyoung Keun Kim 88 64 S. Nordgaard, “Paul and the Provenance of the Law: The Case of Galatians 3,19–20”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 105:1 (2014), pp. 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1515/znw-2014-0004 (2012) chooses for not separating the subjective and objective interpretations. They should rather be integrated so that one can gain a holistic view of justification. According to Debbie Hunn 89 65 D. Hunn, “Does the Law Condemn the World? Law, Sin, and Faith in Galatians 3,22–23”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 106:2 (2015), pp. 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1515/znw-2015-0015 (2012), the exegetical discussion on the interpretation of “the faith of Christ” should be guided by the fact that Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4 in 3:11. This makes the objective interpretation more likely. Benjamin Schliesser 90 66 R. Reeves, “The New Moses of the Law of Christ: Paul in Galatians”, Criswell Theological Review 12:2 (2015), pp. 71–82. (2015) points out that contemporary scholarship is wrongly under the impression that Johannes Hauβleiter was the first scholar suggesting a subjective interpretation of the expression “faith of Christ” in 1891 but that this is not true, since such an interpretation was already considered from the 1820s onwards. In another contribution, Schliesser 91 67 Op. cit., p. 72. (2016) opts for a “third view” in the “faith of Christ” debate: from vv. 23–26, it is clear that Paul did not regard faith as an individual event (i.e., neither as the faith of Christ nor of the believer) but viewed it primarily as an eschatological event: faith “came” and “was revealed”. Chris Kugler 92 68 C. Heil, “‘Angeordnet durch Engel durch die Hand eines Mittlers’ (Gal 3,19): Das paulinische Konzept von der Vermittlung der Tora”, in: A. Taschl-Erber and I. Fischer (eds.), Vermittelte Gegenwart: Konzeptionen der Gottespräsenz von der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels bis Anfang des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.367, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), pp. 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-154725-6 (2016) offers a survey of the state of the debate on the expression “faith of Christ” and the arguments that are used to support the two options. Kugler is of the view that the subjective interpretation currently has the most supporters in Pauline scholarship. Suzan J.M. Sierksma-Agteres 93 69 T.J. Bauer, “‘... angeordnet durch die Engel mit Hilfe eines Mittlers’ (Gal 3,19): Gestalt und Rolle des Mose in den Briefen des Paulus”, in: M. Sommer, E. Eynikel, V. Niederhofer and E. Hernitscheck (eds.), Mosebilder: Gedanken zur Rezeption einer literarischen Figur in Frühjudentum, frühen Christentum und der römisch-hellenistischen Literatur (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.390, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), pp. 211–252. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-155809-2 (2016) supports the option of interpreting Paul’s use of the expression “faith of Christ” as a purposeful ambiguity by investigating Paul’s imitation language against the background of the way in which imitation functioned in the Hellenistic-Roman world, in particular in philosophical training. This suggests that one should interpret the expression as shorthand for believers mimetically moving in faith/faithfulness through Christ towards God. Ryan S. Schellenberg 94 70 L.L. Belleville, “The Sinai-μεσίτης Tradition in Galatians 3:19–20”, in: S.E. Porter and C.D. Land (eds.), Paul and Scripture (Pauline Studies 10, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2019), pp. 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391512_016 (2019) points out that the term οἱ πιστεύοντες (“the believers”) was a self-designation of early Christians and argues that it is thus unlikely that this term refers to Christ’s faith/faithfulness in v. 22 (as well as in Romans 3:22). According to David J. Downs and Benjamin J. Lappenga 95 71 R.B. Matlock, “Detheologizing the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate: Cautionary Remarks from a Lexical Semantic Perspective”, Novum Testamentum 42:1 (2000), pp. 1–23. (2019), proponents of both sides in the “faith of Christ” debate tend to ignore the role of the Risen Christ and they thus propose that when Paul refers to the “faithfulness” of Christ, he has the faithfulness of the Risen Christ in mind. Sang Mok Lee 96 72 M. Silva, “Faith versus Works of Law in Galatians”, in: D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume II: The Paradoxes of Paul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.181, Tübingen/Grand Rapids MI: Mohr Siebeck/Baker Academic, 2004), pp. 217–248. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157089-6 (2019) maintains that Paul deliberately used the expression “faith of Christ” ambiguously in order to criticise Roman imperial cult and ideology by opposing Christ’s faithfulness to that of the emperor, thus encouraging believers to live in the right relationship to Christ. Kevin Grasso 97 73 R.A. Harrisville III, “Before πίστις Χριστοῦ: The Objective Genitive as Good Greek”, Novum Testamentum 48:4 (2006), pp. 353–358. (2020) argues in favour of a third view in the “faith of Christ” debate. Works in theoretical linguistics show that the expression is best translated as “Christ-faith” with “faith” referring to a belief-system and “Christ” qualifying the system. Benjamin Schliesser 98 74 R.B. Matlock, “The Rhetoric of πίστις in Paul: Galatians 2.16, 3.22, Romans 3.22, and Philippians 3.9”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30:2 (2007), pp. 173–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X07084775 (2020) is of the opinion that Pauline scholars fail to grasp the implications of Paul’s statement that faith “came” and “was revealed” (vv. 23 and 25). This shows that he thought of faith as more than a mere human disposition. For him, it was also a supra-individual event. Chapter 10: Galatians 3:26–29 This pericope attracted the most attention of scholars. They spent much time on the distinctions that Paul mentions in v. 28, in particular, the Wirkungsgeschichte of these distinctions, as well as what they imply for Paul’s ethics and for the ethics of believers in our times. 1 75 K.F. Ulrichs, Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma πίστις Χριστοῦ und zum paulinischen Verständnis von Glaube und Rechtfertigung (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.227, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151570-5

1. Introductory issues

1.1 Background

Bernard Dupuy 2 76 D.L. Stubbs, “The Shape of Soteriology and the pistis Christou Debate”, Scottish Journal of Theology 61:2 (2008), pp. 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003693060800329X (2001) draws attention to a formula from Greek antiquity, attributed to Thales of Miletus, in which distinctions are made that are similar to those in v. 28. Dupuy suggests that this tradition passed into popular piety and that Paul might have been aware of such a tradition. J. Albert Harill 3 77 D. Hunn, “Debating the Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Twentieth-Century Scholarship”, in: M.F. Bird and P. Sprinkle (eds.), The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Milton Keynes/Peabody MA: Paternoster/Hendrickson, 2009), pp. 15–32. (2002) believes that Paul’s reference to “putting on Christ” is best understood in terms of the toga virilis coming-of-age ceremony in Roman households. Upon this occasion the youth were warned against succumbing to the flesh, something that Paul also warns against in Galatians. Marc Rastoin 4 78 A.B. Caneday, “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a Theme in Paul’s Theology in Galatians”, in: M.F. Bird and P. Sprinkle (eds.), The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Milton Keynes/Peabody MA: Paternoster/Hendrickson, 2009), pp. 185–205. (2003) explains how Paul makes use of insights from both the Jewish and Greek cultures in order to persuade the Galatians in 3:6–4:7. Rastoin discusses aspects found in this section such as diatribe, synagogal sermons, gezerah shawah and status scripti en voluntatis. Gesila Nneka Uzukwu 5 79 R.B. Matlock, “Saving Faith: The Rhetoric and Semantics of πίστις in Paul”, in: M.F. Bird and P. Sprinkle (eds.), The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Milton Keynes/Peabody MA: Paternoster/Hendrickson, 2009), pp. 73–90. (2010) disagrees with scholars who are of the opinion that the opposites in v. 28 were influenced by Rabbinic blessings of gratitude that, in turn, were influenced by expressions of gratitude in Greek writings. According to Uzukwu, such pairs of opposites were widely used in the Hellenistic world and they may have had some influence on v. 28, but what is found in this verse is a response to a particular situation. Birgit van der Lans 6 80 M.A. Seifrid, “The Faith of Christ”, in: M.F. Bird and P. Sprinkle (eds.), The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Milton Keynes/Peabody MA: Paternoster/Hendrickson, 2009), pp. 129–147. (2010) elucidates Paul’s argument on Abraham in Galatians 3 and 4 by means of Jewish texts in which Abraham was regarded as either the father of many nations or the father of the Jews. Karin B. Neutel 7 81 P.M. Sprinkle, “πίστις Χριστοῦ as an Eschatological Event”, in: M.F. Bird and P.M. Sprinkle (eds.), The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Milton Keynes/Peabody MA: Paternoster/Hendrickson, 2009), pp. 165–184. (2015) situates the opposites in v. 28 within discussions in the first century CE about creating a utopian community in which divisions would no longer play a role. Neutel points out how Paul’s view differs from and overlaps with such notions. Christoph Heil 8 82 F. Watson, “By Faith (of Christ): An Exegetical Dilemma and Its Scriptural Solution”, in: M.F. Bird and P. Sprinkle (eds.), The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Milton Keynes/Peabody MA: Paternoster/Hendrickson, 2009), pp. 147–164. (2016) is of the opinion that the interpretation of rituals in Early Christianity was influenced by notions of piety in the mystery cults. In Galatians, this can be seen in Paul’s reference to circumcision as castration (5:12), having as its background the emasculation associated with the Cybele cult, and the clothing referred to in the context of baptism (3:27), having as its background clothing metaphors in Hellenistic mystery cults. V. 28 is one of the texts that Ilaria L.E. Ramelli 9 83 E.-B. Lee, “A Study of pistis Christou in Paul’s Letters”, 신약논단 16:2 (2009), pp. 561–588. (2016) refers to in a discussion of the legitimacy of slavery from Ancient Judaism to Late Antiquity. Ramelli points out that Paul’s statement seems to be a total reversal of Aristotle’s notion of superiority based on race and gender. Bradley Trick 10 84 R.A. Harrisville III, “πίστις Χριστοῦ and the New Perspective on Paul”, Logia 19:2 (2010), pp. 19–28. (2016) proposes that Paul’s views of a διαθήκη (“testament” or “covenant”) in Galatians 3–4 are best understood in terms of a Hellenistic testament by which God adopted Abraham, with “children” in 3:7 referring to Jews, “children of promise” in 4:28 referring to Gentiles and “seed” in 3:16 referring to Christ and the union of Gentiles and Jews in Christ in 3:29. Bruce W. Longenecker 11 85 M.C. Easter, “The pistis Christou Debate: Main Arguments and Responses in Summary”, Currents in Biblical Research 9:1 (2010), pp. 33–47. https:// (2018) explains the relationality between free people and slaves as displayed in two villas in Oplontis (north of Pompeii) and points out that the statement about neither slave nor free runs against the grain of the ideology displayed here. However, Longenecker also remarks that this was an idealised ideology not easily put into practice, as other Christian texts testify.

2. Text-critical, linguistic, stylistic and translation issues

2.1 Text-critical issues

According to Jens Herzer 12

doi.org/10.1177/1476993X09360725

(2017), the original reading of v. 28d (corrected in Sinaiticus but found in P46 and in Alexandrinus) might have been “for all of you belong to Christ Jesus”. Herzer points out that this reading fits in well with the logic of vv. 26–29. Jan Lambrecht 13 86 G.J. Choi, “How To Interpret πίστις Χριστοῦ: With a Contextual Study of ‘Faith’ and ‘Righteousness’ in Galatians 2:15–21, 3:1–29 and 5:2–6”, 신약연구 10:4 (2011), pp. 911–940. (2018) agrees with Herzer, providing further arguments in support of such a view.

2.2 Linguistic issues

Gordon D. Fee 14 87 J. Maston, “The Nature of Salvation History in Galatians”, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 2:2 (2012), pp. 89–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/26426549 (2007) discusses the way in which Paul uses the locative ἐν (“in”) in 1:6, 16, 2:20, 3:11–12 and 26. According to Fee, with the exception of 1:16, the emphasis is on how the Galatians should maintain their life in Christ, not on how they became his followers. Wayne Walden 15 88 H.K. Kim, “‘Faith of Christ’ and ‘Faith in Christ’: In a Zero-Sum or Win-Win Relationship? A Re-Consideration of pistis Christou in Galatians”, 신약연구 11:4 (2012), pp. 890–929. https://doi.org/10.24229/kents.2012.11.4.005 For a response, see: G.-J. Choi, “Again πίστις Χριστοῦ: A Rejoinder of Keun Hyung Kim’s ‘Faith of Christ’ and ‘Faith in Christ’: In a Zero-Sum Relationship or Win-Win Relationship? A Re-Consideration of pistis Christou in Galatians”, 신약연구 12:2 (2013), pp. 302–333. https://doi.org/10.24229/kents.2013.13.2.005 (2010) draws attention to two grammatical oddities in v. 28 – the use of the verb ἔνειμι (“is”) and the gender of the adjectives. According to Walden, ἔνειμι is used to draw attention to a matter and it should not be regarded as a synonym of εἰμί (“is”). This implies that this verse cannot be used to support the notion of egalitarianism. Translators should also be aware of these issues. According to Maureen W. Yeung 16 89 D. Hunn, “Pistis Christou in Galatians: The Connection to Habakkuk 2:4”, Tyndale Bulletin 63:1 (2012), pp. 75–91. (2011), the three paradoxes inherent in the expressions “the seed of Abraham” (3:16, 29), “the law of Christ” (6:2) and “the Israel of God” (6:16), are genuine paradoxes. They were already implicit in the Hebrew Scriptures and Paul merely developed them within his missionary context. Shinobu Yoshida 17 90 B. Schliesser, “‘Exegetical Amnesia’ and ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ: The ‘Faith of Christ’ in Nineteenth-Century Pauline Scholarship”, The Journal of Theological Studies 66:1 (2015), pp. 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flv008 (2019) focuses on Paul’s use of first and second person pronouns in vv. 25–26 and 4:6. In both instances, “you” refers to the recipients (as Gentile believers), but “our” in “our hearts” in 4:6 refers to both Jewish and Gentile believers.

2.3 Metaphor

Jung Hoon Kim 18 91 B. Schliesser, “‘Christ-Faith’ as an Eschatological Event (Galatians 3.23–26): A ‘Third View’ on πίστις Χριστοῦ”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38:3 (2016), pp. 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X15621654 (2004) draws attention to the significance of clothing imagery in the Pauline corpus. According to Kim, in v. 27, the emphasis falls on the fact that people become children of God through faith. Accordingly, the metaphor is used in this instance for signifying union with the salvific Christ through faith in baptism. Martin F. Connell 19 92 C. Kugler, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ: The Current State of Play and the Key Arguments”, Currents in Biblical Research 14:2 (2016), pp. 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993X14549917 (2011) discusses the ways in which Paul refers to clothing the body of Christ in his letters. Connell suggests that the reference to clothing in v. 27 is not merely metaphorical. It might also have referred to a ritual action whereby people indicated dissociation of their values from those of the rest of the world.

2.4 Translation issues

Gregory Vall 20 93 S.J.M. Sierksma-Agteres, “Imitation in Faith: Enacting Paul’s Ambiguous pistis Christou Formulations on a Greco-Roman Stage”, International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 77:3 (2016), pp. 119–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/21692327.2016.1231076 (2003) examines the translation of the terms υἱός (“son”) and υἱοθεσία (“adoption”) in 3:23–4:7 in the NRSV and argues that the inaccurate translation of these terms can only be rectified if one stops trying to avoid male-orientated language in a translation.

3. Wirkungsgeschichte

3.1 The Early Church

Taking v. 28 as point of departure, Heike Omerzu 21 94 R.S. Schellenberg, “οί πίστεύοντες: An Early Christ-Group Self-Designation and Paul’s Rhetoric of Faith”, New Testament Studies 65:1 (2019), pp. 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0028688518000309 (2002) argues that the notion that a decline can be detected from a liberating view of women in the Jesus movement to Paul’s chauvinism, with an even further downward trend to an animosity towards women in the third generation of Christianity, is an oversimplification, as the views on women were much more ambivalent during this period. Kari Kloos 22 95 D.J. Downs and B.J. Lappenga, The Faithfulness of the Risen Christ: Pistis and the Exalted Lord in the Pauline Letters (Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2019). (2006) identifies three main thrusts in Patristic interpretations of v. 28: an ascetic thrust, i.e., interpretations renouncing marriage (e.g., Jerome and Athanasius), a unitive thrust, i.e., readings emphasising the spiritual unity of all believers (e.g., Augustine), and a theological thrust, i.e., interpretations focusing on what the verse reveals about God’s identity (e.g., Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus). Pauline Nigh Hogan 23 96 S.M. Lee, “Christ’s πίστις vs. Caesar’s fides: πίστις Χριστοῦ in Galatians and the Roman Imperial Cult”, The Expository Times 130:6 (2019), pp. 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014524618813282 (2008) offers a detailed study of the interpretation of v. 28 in the first four centuries of Christianity, showing that almost all commentators understood it as referring to Christian perfection but that this notion was interpreted in different ways, depending on the interest of the particular commentator who cited it. Johan Leemans 24 97 K. Grasso, “A Linguistic Analysis of πίστις Χριστοῦ: The Case for the Third View”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43:1 (2020), pp. 108–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x20949385 (2009) discusses several examples of the Patristic interpretation of Pauline texts. In the case of v. 28, Leemans emphasises the diversity of interpretations. The verse has been interpreted eschatologically, ethically, ascetically, protologically, as an indication of how life in monasteries should be organised, and even in a Christological/Trinitarian sense. Silke Petersen 25 98 B. Schliesser, “Glaube als Ereignis: Zu einer vernachlässigten Dimension des paulinischen Glaubensverständnisses”, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 117:1 (2020), pp. 21–45. https://doi.org/10.1628/zthk-2020-0003 (2010) investigates the discussions on the abolition of gender differences in Early Christianity. According to Petersen, the inherent potential of v. 28 in terms of the criticism of hierarchies (as is evident from some early interpretations of the verse) could never come into its own because the interpretation of the verse came to be dominated by ontological issues instead of social issues. Gesila Nneka Uzukwu 26 1 For an overview of earlier research on v. 28, see Wolfgang Schrage, “Skizze einer Auslegungs- und Wirkungsgeshichte von Gal 3,28”, in: W. Schrage (ed.), Kreuzestheologie und Ethik im Neuen Testament: Gesammelte Studien (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 205, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), pp. 268–291. (Originally published in 1999.) See also: D.F. Tolmie, “Tendencies in the Interpretation of Galatians 3:28 since 1990”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 19 (2014), pp. 105–129. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v33i2S.6 (2010) offers an overview of the way in which the Church Fathers interpreted v. 28c, showing that current interpretation does not really differ from the way in which they interpreted the phrase. Uzukwu distinguishes between four approaches: interpretations linking it to baptism, human sexuality, creation or equality in Christ. Catherine Broc-Schmezer 27 2 B. Dupuy, “‘Ni Juif ni Grec’: Sur une formule controversée de saint Paul”, Istina 46:3 (2001), pp. 229–233. (2014) explains Chrysostom’s interpretation of v. 28. He does not pay much attention to the first pair (Jew/Greek) but rather emphasises the other two pairs (slave/free and male/female) in order to underline the equality between rich and poor and males and females in his time. V. 27 is one of the examples that Benjamin D. Haupt 28 3 J.A. Harrill, “Coming of Age and Putting on Christ: The toga virilis Ceremony, Its Paraenesis, and Paul’s Interpretation of Baptism in Galatians”, Novum Testamentum 44:3 (2002), pp. 252–277. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853602320249473 (2017) picks to argue that Tertullian probably did not make use of an already existing Latin translation of Galatians but that he translated the parts that he needed from the Greek himself. Sotirios Despotis 29 4 M. Rastoin, Tarse et Jérusalem: La double culture de l’apôtre Paul en Galates 3,6–4,7 (Analecta Biblica 152, Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2003). (2017) offers an Eastern-Orthodox reading of vv. 6–9 and 23–29 based on the interpretation of John Chrysostom. Despotis shows that Chrysostom’s interpretation had a solid exegetical basis. Jonathan D. Teubner 30 5 For Rabbinic writings, see: G.N. Uzukwu, “Gal 3,28 and Its Alleged Relationship to Rabbinic Writings”, Biblica 91:3 (2010), pp. 370–392. For a discussion of possible Greek influence, see: G.N. Uzukwu, “The Problem with the Three Expressions of Gratitude Found in Greek Writings and Their Alleged Relationship to Gal 3:28”, Cristianesimo nella Storia 31:3 (2010), pp. 927–944. See also later: G.N. Uzukwu, The Unity of Male and Female in Jesus Christ: An Exegetical Study of Galatians 3.28c in Light of Paul’s Theology of Promise (Library of New Testament Studies: International Studies on Christian Origins 531, London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015), pp. 3–31. (2018) investigates the role of prayer in the works of Augustine, Boethius and Benedict. For Galatians research, the influence that the notion of “putting on Christ” (v. 27) had on Augustine’s views of prayer is important. Raphael A. Cadenhead 31 6 B. van der Lans, “Belonging To Abraham’s Kin: Genealogical Appeals To Abraham as a Possible Background for Paul’s Abrahamic Argument”, in: M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten and J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill 2010), pp. 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004216495_021 (2018) traces the development of Gregory of Nyssa’s ascetical theology. In the case of Galatians, Cadenhead points out a development in Gregory’s interpretation of v. 28. During the first phase he focused on the eschatological erasure of sexual differences or the striving of the ascetic to appropriate both male and female virtues. In the later phase he emphasised how being male or female could be transcended by longing for God who is neither male nor female. Soultana Lamprou and Viera Zozul’aková 32 7 K.B. Neutel, A Cosmopolitan Ideal: Paul’s Declaration “Neither Jew nor Greek, Neither Slave nor Free, nor Male and Female” in the Context of First Century Thought (Library of New Testament Studies 513, London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015). (2019) discuss the Patristic interpretation of v. 28. They emphasise the importance of the Christocentric basis in Patristic exegesis, which was also regarded as a criterion for the dissolution of all types of distinction. Luis Josué Salés 33 8 C. Heil, “Beschneidung und Taufe im Galaterbrief: Zur Bedeutung der Mysterienkulte in einem frühchristlichen Grundsatzstreit”, Keryx 4 (2016), pp. 87–98. (2020) engages critically with the notion that Paul was a misogynist, first by discussing what can be gleaned from Paul’s seven authentic letters in this regard and second by pointing out that according to Epiphanios of Salamis, in the second century CE a community in Phrygia known as the Kuintillians ordained women, basing such a practice on v. 28, amongst others. According to Salés, the Kuintillians probably preserved an apostolic tradition according to which there was equal access for males and females to leadership in the church. Richard A. Muller 34 9 I.L.E. Ramelli, Social Justice and the Legitimacy of Slavery: The Role of Philosophical Asceticism from Ancient Judaism to Late Antiquity (Oxford Early Christian Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 102. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198777274.001.0001 (2020) traces the Patristic discussions about Christianity being the “third race” (an idea amongst others influenced by vv. 27–28). In particular, Muller shows how Eusebius of Caesarea developed this notion theologically and philosophically.

3.2 The Middle Ages

William M. Wright IV 35 10 B. Trick, Abrahamic Descent, Testamentary Adoption, and the Law in Galatians: Differentiating Abraham’s Sons, Seed, and Children of Promise (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 169, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2016). (2015) draws attention to Aquinas’s interpretation of v. 28. Wright shows that Aquinas tended to emphasise the regenerative grace that the rational soul receives in baptism. Everybody receives this in baptism prior to any differences. According to Matthew Simpkins 36 11 B.W. Longenecker, “Slave and Free: Ideal Ideologies in Vesuvian Villas and in Galatians 3:28”, in: M.C. Parsons and R. Walsh (eds.), “A Temple Not Made with Hands”: Essays in Honor of Naymond H. Keathley (Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, 2018), pp. 85–102. (2016), Aquinas’s model of friendship/charity as found in his explanation of v. 28 can help democracy in our times with its crisis of confidence, since he teaches us that equality and difference can co-exist. François Soyer 37 12 J. Herzer, “‘Alle Einer in Christus’: Gal 3,28b und kein Ende? Ein Vorschlag”, in: M. Labahn (ed.), Spurensuche zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament: Eine Festschrift im Dialog mit Udo Schnelle (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 271, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), pp. 125–142. https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666540691.125 (2016) discusses Alonso de Espina’s polemic against Jews and the descendants of Jewish converts. According to Soyer, it may seem as if this goes against the meaning of v. 28, but this is not the case, since De Espina distinguished between general converso judaising and genuine Jewish conversion to Christendom.

3.3 The sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries:

Earl S. Johnson Jr. 38 13 J. Lambrecht, In Search of Meaning II: Another Year of Reflection on the New Testament (2017–2018) (Beau Bassin: Scholars’ Press, 2018), pp. 319‑322. (2003) discusses the way in which v. 28 has been interpreted in Presbyterian circles. Johnson begins with the view of Calvin, who interpreted it as not indicating equality between men and women and then shows how this and other similar views only started to change – very slowly – at a much later time (around the middle of the nineteenth century).

3.4 The nineteenth to the twentieth centuries

Demetrius Williams 39 14 G.D. Fee, “Paul’s Use of Locative ἐν in Galatians: On Text and Meaning in Galatians 1.6; 1.16; 2.20; 3.11–12, and 3.26”, in: C.J. Roetzel and R.L. Foster (eds.), The Impartial God: Essays in Biblical Studies in Honor of Jouette M. Bassler (New Testament Monographs 22, Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2007), pp. 170–185. (2003) offers an overview of the way in which v. 28 was appropriated in African American churches to fight against racism, sexism and classicism. Williams also points out that black churches sometimes failed to realise their own sexist practices. One of the texts that David W. Kling 40 15 W. Walden, “Galatians 3:28: Grammar, Text, Context, and Translation”, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 15:1 (2010), pp. 23–26. See also earlier: W. Walden, “Galatians 3:28: Grammar Observations”, Restoration Quarterly 51:1 (2009), pp. 45–50. (2004) chooses to illustrate the interplay between the Bible and society is v. 28. In this instance the issue that receives attention is the important role that this text played in the advocacy for women’s ministry and ordination. Ida Raming 41 16 M.W. Yeung, “Old Testament Paradoxes in Galatians: Rethinking the Theology of Galatians”, in: J.C. Laansma, G.R. Osborne and R.F. van Neste (eds.), New Testament Theology in Light of the Church’s Mission: Essays in Honor of I. Howard Marshall (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2011), pp. 213–228. (2006) offers an overview of the way in which v. 27 was interpreted in Vatican documents to exclude women in the Name of God in the era from Pope Pius XII until Pope Benedict XVI. Stephen J. Lennox 42 17 S. Yoshida, “Consideration of Pronominal Shifts in the Epistle to the Galatians 3:25–26 and 4:6”, 新約学研究 47 (2019), pp. 19–38. (2012) offers an overview of the way in which v. 28 was used in the US in the Holiness Movement during the antebellum period. Lennox believes that it could be used in this movement as a leading verse in the fight for the liberation of women because of the emphasis in this group on “principles”. This pericope is one of the examples that Paul R. Abramson 43 18 J.H. Kim, The Significance of Clothing Imagery in the Pauline Corpus (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 268, London/New York NY: T & T Clark International, 2004), pp. 108–133. (2012) uses to illustrate the influence that the Bible had on politics. Abrahamson shows how this passage was used in the discussions about slavery in the US, both for and against abolition. Audrey Taschini 44 19 M.F. Connell, “Clothing the Body of Christ: An Inquiry About the Letters of Paul”, Worship 85:2 (2011), pp. 128–146. (2017) discusses the way in which John Donne expands the clothing metaphor (v. 27) in terms of fashion customs of his time in one of his sermons in order to convey a spiritual message.

3.5 Studies addressing contemporary situations

On the basis of v. 28, Demetrius K. Williams 45 20 G. Vall, “Inclusive Language and the Equal Dignity of Women and Men in Christ”, The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 67:4 (2003), pp. 579–606. https://doi.org/10.1353/tho.2003.0002 (2004) argues that African American churches should advocate sexual equality with the same fervour as they fought against racism. In particular, African American churches should look critically at their attitudes and practices regarding women in ministry. Richard Liong-Seng Phua 46 21 H. Omerzu, “‘Es gibt nicht mehr männlich und weiblich’: Zur Bedeutung von Frauen im frühen Christentum”, in: S. Schmitt (ed.), Frauen und Kirche (Mainzer Vorträge, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2002), pp. 153–183. (2008) maintains that v. 28 implies that the Bi-Annual Congress of Chinese Biblical Scholars is wrong to have being an ethnic Chinese a criterion for membership or attendance of the meeting. On the basis Paul’s view of “neither Jew nor Greek” in v. 28, Bernard Ukwuegbu 47 22 K. Kloos, “‘In Christ There Is Neither Male nor Female’: Patristic Interpretation of Galatians 3:28”, Studia Patristica 39 (2006), pp. 239‑244. (2008) pleads for a distinctive African theology of tolerance and mutual respect in church and society. John T. Squires 48 23 P.N. Hogan, No Longer Male and Female: Interpreting Galatians 3:28 in Early Christianity (Library of New Testament Studies 380, London/New York NY: T & T Clark, 2008). (2009) explains how vv. 27–28 served as a driving force behind the commitment of the Uniting Church in Australia to multiculturalism and the ordination of women, as well as behind arguments supporting justice for indigenous people. Duk Ki Kim 49 24 J. Leemans, “Die Paulusrezeption in der Alten Kirche”, Theologie der Gegenwart 52:1 (2009), pp. 42–54. (2009) investigates v. 28 in order to suggest new modes of East-Asian cultural identity, subjectivity and political solidarity in the light of Paul’s views on Christ as the Messiah. John Mansford Prior 50 25 S. Petersen, “Nicht mehr ‘männlich und weiblich’ (Gen 1,27): Die Rede von der Aufhebung der Geschlechterdifferenz im frühen Christentum”, in: I. Fischer and C. Heil (eds.), Geschlechterverhältnisse und Macht: Lebensformen in der Zeit des frühen Christentums (Exegese in unserer Zeit 21, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2010), pp. 78–109. (2010) points out that vv. 27–28 is mostly interpreted in a spiritualised way by minority Christian groups in Indonesia and argues that it is a missiological imperative to move to a social reading of the text so that its radical egalitarian claim may be manifested in South East Asian societies. Charles H. Cosgrove 51 26 G.N. Uzukwu, “The Church Fathers’ Interpretations and Modern Exegesis of Gal 3,28c: A Comparative Analysis”, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 27:2 (2010), pp. 109–131. (2010) offers an overview of scholarly interpretations of Paul’s idea of ethnicity, also of the way in which v. 28 was interpreted in this regard. Paba Nidhani de Andrado 52 27 C. Broc-Schmezer, “‘Il n’y a ni Juif, ni Grec; ni esclave, ni homme libre, il n’y a pas l’homme et la femme.’: Galates 3,28 chez Jean Chrysostome: Questions d’anthropologie”, in: I. Bochet and M. Fédou (eds.), L’exégèse patristique de l’Épître aux Galates (Collection des Études Augustiniennes: Série Antiquité 197, Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2014), pp. 13–32. (2010) draws attention to the polarisation found in the interpretation of v. 28 by feminists on the one hand and official Catholic documents on the other hand and suggests that the problems in interpretation could be minimised if a more nuanced understanding of the differences between female and male were developed. Ruth Oluwakemi Oke 53 28 B.D. Haupt, “Tertullian’s Text of Galatians”, Studia Patristica 96 (2017), pp. 23–28. (2012) offers an exegetical analysis of vv. 26–28 in order to support the cause of women participating actively in government. Taking Paul’s vision of unity in v. 28 as a point of departure (to strive towards unity where ethnicity does not play a role), Hans Leander 54 29 S. Despotis, “Eine östlich-orthodoxe Lektüre von Gal. 3,6–9.23–29”, in: A. Despotis (ed.), Participation, Justification, and Conversion: Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Paul and the Debate between “Old and New Perspectives on Paul” (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.442, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), pp. 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-155453-7 (2014) suggests a Lutheran recontextualisation of Paul’s vision in post-Lutheran Sweden, in particular by being sensitive to issues surrounding differences in ethnicity. Lovemore Togarasei 55 30 J.D. Teubner, Prayer after Augustine: A Study in the Development of the Latin Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 69–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198767176.001.0001 (2016) points out that Christianity has still not succeeded in providing an alternative identity to ethnicity in Africa. Accordingly, Togarasei investigates the implications of Pauline texts such as v. 28 for Christian identity in this continent. A hermetical interrogation of v. 28 and the situation of women in the Church of Christ in Zimbabwe by Francis Machingura and Paradzai Nyakuhwa 56 31 R.A. Cadenhead, The Body and Desire: Gregory of Nyssa’s Ascetical Theology (Christianity in Late Antiquity 4, Oakland CA: University of California Press, 2018). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv9hvt61 (2016) reveals the extent of sexism in this denomination. To them, it is clear that gender discrimination, prejudice and stereotyping prevent females from occupying leadership positions. Jennifer Slater 57 32 S. Lamprou and V. Zozul’aková, “The Abolition of Ethnic, Racial, or Cultural Distinctions in the Apostle Paul: Indicative Patristic Approach”, Konštantínove Listy 12:2 (2019), pp. 33–42. https://doi.org/10.17846/CL.2019.12.2.33-42 (2016) uses v. 28 as a point of departure for outlining a way to cultivate an inclusive type of diversity in South Africa. Neville Curle 58 33 L.J. Salés, “Galatians 3:28 and the Ordination of Women in Second-Century Pauline Churches”, in: G. Thomas and E. Narinskaya (eds.), Women and Ordination in the Orthodox Church: Explorations in Theology and Practice (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2020), pp. 58–98. (2017) identifies three facets of patriarchalism (racism, sexism and classicism) practised in the Kingdom of Swaziland that are in conflict with vv. 26–29. Allen J. McNicol 59 34 R.A. Muller, “Eusebius of Caesarea and the ‘Third Race’: Christianity, Hellenization, and a Harnackian Irony”, Mid-America Journal of Theology 31 (2020), pp. 7–26. (2017) explains why baptism was so important to Paul and how vv. 26–29 fitted in with Paul’s broader argument in the letter. McNicol also points out why baptism is still important in the church nowadays. David G. Horrell 60 35 W.M. Wright IV, “Galatians 3:28 in Thomas Aquinas’ Lectures on the Pauline Letters: A Study in Thomistic Reception”, Journal of the Bible and Its Reception 2:1 (2015), pp. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/jbr-201 5-0001 (2017) uses insights from the history of interpretation of v. 28 to show how important it is for exegetes to acknowledge their own particularity and to realise that they need insights from other interpreters who are located and embodied differently. On the basis of vv. 26–28, John Arierhi Ottuh 61 36 M. Simpkins, “Democracy’s Crisis of Confidence: Can Aquinas’s Friendship Model of Society Help?”, Crucible January (2016), pp. 28–38. (2018) develops a liberation theology for Nigeria (similar to the liberation theology developed against apartheid), specifically aimed at liberating the ethnic minorities in Nigeria who are oppressed and subjugated by other ethnic groups who have the political and religious power. One of the examples that Ellen T. Charry 62 37 F. Soyer, “‘All One in Christ Jesus’? Spiritual Closeness, Genealogical Determinism and the Conversion of Jews in Alonso de Espina’s Fortalitium Fidei”, Journal of Spanish Cultural Studies 17:3 (2016), pp. 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636204.2016.1201342 (2020) uses to illustrate the danger of anti-Jewish attitudes in Christian preaching (and how to avoid it) is a recent sermon on vv. 23–29. Stephen J. Patterson 63 38 E.S. Johnson Jr., Witness without Parallel: Eight Biblical Texts That Make Us Presbyterian (Louisville KY: Geneva, 2003), pp. 73–89. (2020) challenges the churches in the USA to dust off the ancient creed in vv. 26–28 to react to the widespread racism and inequality in the country.

4. Interpretative approaches

4.1 Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures

Karin B. Neutel 64 39 D. Williams, “African American Churches and Galatians 3:28: A Brief Assessment of the Appropriation of an Egalitarian Paradigm”, in: S. Matthews, C.B. Kittredge and M. Johnson-Debaufre (eds.), Walk in the Ways of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (Harrisburg PA/London/New York NY: Trinity Press International, 2003), pp. 351–369. (2010) explains the way in which Paul understands Abraham as universal ancestor in Galatians as follows: Through Christ’s death and resurrection a new era has been inaugurated in which God no longer distinguishes between Jews and Gentiles. Access to God is thus universal and both Jews and Gentiles are God’s children. According to François Vouga 65 40 D.W. Kling, The Bible in History: How the Texts Have Shaped the Times (New York NY: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 269–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195130081.001.0001 (2014), the way in which the Hebrew Scriptures are interpreted in vv. 6–29 is best described as a first Christian theology of the Old Testament, in particular as a response to the question of how the law and the prophets should be interpreted from the event of the crucifixion of the Son of God. In a book on Adam’s dust and glory in the Hodayot and Paul’s Letters, Nicholas A. Meyer 66 41 I. Raming, Gleichrangig in Christus anstatt: Ausschluss von Frauen “im Namen Gottes”: Zur Rezeption und Interpretation von Gal 3,27f in vatikanischen Dokumenten (Theologische Plädoyers 1, Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2006). (2016) refers to Paul’s statement on no longer male and female in v. 27. According to Meyer, this refers to Genesis 1:27 and Paul claims that the earthly and mortal aspects of the image of God are transcended by participating in Christ.

4.2 Social-scientific/sociological approaches

Dennis C. Duling 67 42 S.J. Lennox, “‘One in Christ’: Galatians 3:28 and the Holiness Agenda”, The Evangelical Quarterly 84:3 (2012), pp. 195–212. (2014) uses ethnicity, marginality and structuration theories to highlight inconsistencies in Paul’s views on ethnicity (with regard to v. 28: “no longer Jew or Greek”). Duling describes Paul as culturally marginalised, someone who occasionally had to make accommodations in his attempts to unify believers, and points out that this gave rise to unintended results. Rotimi Odudele 68 43 P.R. Abramson, Politics in the Bible (New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2012), pp. 148–151. (2018) approaches v. 28 from the perspective of ethnicity. The revolutionary perspective on social ethics offered by this text is then applied to contemporary Nigerian society.

4.3 Rhetorical approaches

Juan Luis Caballero 69 44 A. Taschini, “The Christian Believer’s Spiritual Clothing in John Donne’s Comment of Galatians 3,27”, Elephant & Castle 16 (2017), pp. 5–16. (2004) uses rhetorical analysis to clarify Paul’s argument in Galatians 3. A Christological thesis forms the centre of Paul’s argument and is backed up by Scripture and his authority (based on revelation). Mika Hietanen 70 45 D.K. Williams, An End to This Strife: The Politics of Gender in African American Churches (Minneapolis MN: Fortress, 2004). (2005) offers a pragma-dialectical analysis of 3:1–5:12 and identifies the most important argument in this pericope as that all believers are offspring and heirs of Abraham. 71 46 R.L.-S. Phua, “Galatians 3:28, shalom, and Ethnic Chinese Biblical Scholars”, Sino-Christian Studies 5 (2008), pp. 39–66. D. Francois Tolmie 72 47 B. Ukwuegbu, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: The Church in Africa and the Quest for Self-Understanding in the Light of the Pauline Vision and Today’s Context of Cultural Pluralism”, International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 8:4 (2008), pp. 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742250802353768 (2005) offers a text-centred rhetorical analysis of vv. 26–29 and summarises Paul’s argument in this pericope as reminding the Galatians of their baptism as proof that they became children of God.

4.4 Ideological-critical approaches

According to Pamela Eisenbaum 73 48 J.T. Squires, “Interpreting Galatians 3:27–28 in the Uniting Church: A Relational and Contextual Perspective”, Uniting Church Studies 15:2 (2009), pp. 11–23. (2000), who describes herself as a Jewish feminist, Paul had good intentions, but his views were used subsequently in an abominable way. Eisenbaum regards v. 28 as articulating novel views on social relationships between people. Willi Braun 74 49 D.K. Kim, “Paul’s Cultural-Political Theology and East Asian Biblical Hermeneutics: Postcolonial Identity and Solidarity in Gal 3:28”, in: Y.M. Lee (ed.), Mapping and Engaging the Bible in Asian Cultures: Congress of the Society of Asian Biblical Studies 2008 Seoul Conference (Seoul: Christian Literature Society of Korea, 2009), pp. 141–173. (2002) believes that Early Christianity was wholly an androcentric project. Even “women-friendly” texts such as v. 28 are based on a masculinised gender ideology. Angela Standhartinger 75 50 J.M. Prior, “Humanity and Diversity: Isaiah 2:1–5; Galatians 3:28–29; Revelation 7:9–10”, in: M. Ipgrave and D. Marshall (eds.), Humanity: Texts and Contexts: Christian and Muslim Perspectives (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2010), pp. 106–119. (2003) identifies three different hermeneutical approaches in this verse in feminist studies and tests these approaches by analysing the notion found in Romans 7:1–6 pertaining to freedom from the law of the husband. According to Standhartinger, v. 28 not only reflects on social practices of women in Christian congregations in Paul’s time but also expresses his critique of “naturalistic” views of gender. Dale B. Martin 76 51 C.H. Cosgrove, “Paul and Ethnicity: A Selective History of Interpretation”, in: M.D. Given (ed.), Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle (Peabody MA/Edinburgh: Hendrickson, 2010), pp. 71–98. (2006) argues that v. 28 does not address equality. Rather, it states that the inferior female form has been taken up in the perfected male form – a notion that is best avoided. Instead, Martin argues that the opposite should happen. What is masculine should be taken up in the feminine. Jeremy Punt 77 52 P.N. de Andrado, “A Pauline Paradigm of Partnership”, in: S. Ross, D. Irarrázabal and P. Murray (eds.), Ministries in the Church (Concilium 2010/1, London: SCM, 2010), pp. 65–75. (2010) interprets this verse from a postcolonial, queer perspective. Although it is not an emancipatory text in the true sense of the word, such a perspective offers a different view of the text – a view focusing on people in liminal situations. Joseph A. Marchal 78 53 R.O. Oke, “We Are All Children of God! An Exegetical Analysis of Galatians 3:26–28 in Support of Women’s Participation in Active Governance”, in: J.K. Ayantayo, O.A. Dada and H.A. Labeodan (eds.), Religion and Governance in Nigeria: Dedicated to Late Dr. Akintunde, Dorcas Olubanke (Ibadan Religious Studies Series 4, Ibadan: Dept. of Religious Studies, University of Ibadan, 2012), pp. 167–178. (2010) views Galatians from an intersex perspective. Marchal shows that Paul’s argumentation in the letter may be useful for an intersex critique but also shows how such a perspective challenges the way in which the letter is usually interpreted. One of the texts that Marchal discusses in this regard is v. 28. The relationship between v. 28 and the household codes in Colossians (with the Acta Isodori functioning as a background) is the subject of a study by Marianne Bjelland Kartzow 79 54 H. Leander, “Reading Paul in Post-Lutheran Sweden: On the Significance of Ethnic Difference and Belonging”, Studia Theologica 68:2 (2014), pp. 184–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/0039338X.2014.961200 (2010) in which the value of an “intersectional approach” (i.e., a focus on how categories of oppression overlap, modifying and reinforcing each other) is demonstrated. From this study, it is clear that identities in antiquity and Christianity were so complex that scholars who study them cannot focus on one pair of relationships only (e.g., male/female). Instead, they need to consider the intersection of various aspects such as ethnicity, class, gender and age. In another study, Kartzow 80 55 L. Togarasei, “Rethinking Christian Identity: African Reflections from Pauline Writings”, Perichoresis 14:1 (2016), pp. 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1515/perc-2016-0006 (2017) uses the same approach to highlight three important insights: an intersectional approach opens up spaces for readers experiencing discrimination, 4:21–31 is not gender inclusive as Hagar is marginalised, and the reference to Hagar draws attention to the claim in 3:28, encouraging discussions about ambiguous memories about marginalised women. Brigitte Kahl 81 56 F. Machingura and P. Nyakuhwa, “Sexism: A Hermetical Interrogation of Galatians 3:28 and Women in the Church of Christ in Zimbabwe”, Journal of Pan African Studies 8:2 (2015), pp. 92–113. (2012) interprets the perspective of Galatians on the “Others” as follows: the letter de-hierarchicalises all types of polarities and envisages a new way of living together with the “Others”, i.e., living a life based on love: “This biblically based anti-imperial, anti-Occidental concept of unity is the central theme not only of Galatians 3:26–28, but of Galatians as a whole”. 82 57 J. Slater, “Intersecting Culture, Values and Transformation in Shaping an Integrated Ethnic Identity within a Diastratically Variated Society: Employing South Africa as a Case Study”, Verbum et Ecclesia 37:1 (2016), pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v37i1.1598 From a Nigerian cultural perspective, Adewale J. Adelakun 83 58 N. Curle, “A Critique of the Patriarchalistic Paradigm as Practised in the Kingdom of Swaziland”, Conspectus 23 (2017), pp. 57–97. (2012) contends that both egalitarian and complementarian readings of v. 28 are wrong, since they apply the verse to the rights of women in church and society. Paul focused on soteriological issues, and not on leadership struggles. J. Ayodeji Adewuya 84 59 A.J. McNicol, “Baptism and the Moral Life”, Christian Studies 29 (2017), pp. 33–46. (2014) reads the African story in the light of v. 28. Although Paul does not support the elimination of social differences, they are irrelevant in Christ. Adewuya thus shows how Africans reading this verse can experience the same feeling of liberation that Paul expresses here. Marie-Theres Wacker 85 60 D.G. Horrell, “Paul, Inclusion and Whiteness: Particularizing Interpretation”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40:2 (2017), pp. 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x17739204 (2018) explains how a postcolonial approach to vv. 27–28 can help to achieve diversity in Asian Christianity. The following issues receive attention: language, circumcision (against the background of the New Perspective on Paul), slavery and gender. Pablo Virgilio S. David 86 61 J.A. Ottuh, Towards Ethnic Liberation Theology in Nigeria: A Polemic in a New Testament Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018). (2018) criticises colonial interpretations of v. 28 that easily develop into the notion of Western triumphalism. David rather focuses on the fact that Paul believed that being in Christ enabled people to transcend differentiations. Mayuko Yasuda 87 62 E.T. Charry, “Awakening to Judaism and Jews in Christian Preaching”, The International Journal of Homiletics 4 (2020), pp. 41–73. (2019) destabilises the gender binary in v. 28 by means of queer criticism. The oneness in Christ differs totally from the notion of perfect masculinity that was dominant at that time and is rather a type of unity achieved by another type of power dynamics, a type of mobility moving downward. Jennifer T. Kaalund 88 63 S.J. Patterson, “A Forgotten Creed in the Summer of Rage”, Dialog: A Journal of Theology 59:3 (2020), pp. 188–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/dial.12598 (2020) offers a feminist postcolonial reading of the same verse, challenging the way in which Paul tries to construct Christian identity as something that is “in Christ” but “not of Christ”. Kaalund argues that one should not practise disembodied readings of Biblical texts, since this gives rise to disembodied theological constructions. Mitzi J. Smith 89 64 K.B. Neutel, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Abraham as Universal Ancestor”, in: M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten and J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2010), pp. 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004216495_020 (2020) challenges Paul (“talks back” to Paul), since he exploits Hagar, an enslaved woman, in order to promote a gospel proclaiming freedom. Even v. 28 is challenged, since it normalises ethnic, class and gender binaries. V. 28 is one of the texts that Halvor Moxnes 90 65 F. Vouga, “Die erste Theologie des Alten Testaments: Gal 3,6–29”, in: J.M. Robker, F. Ueberschaer and T. Wagner (eds.), Text – Textgeschichte – Textwirkung: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Siegfried Kreuzer (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 419, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014), pp. 413–426. (2020) discusses as part of a dialogue on household and gender in the context of New Testament writings and the church in Africa. Moxnes emphasises that understanding gender is not an innocent process. It usually takes place in contexts in which people are trying to suppress critical perspectives from the Bible.

4.5 Cognitive science approaches

Colleen Shantz 91 66 N.A. Meyer, Adam’s Dust and Adam’s Glory in the Hodayot and the Letters of Paul: Rethinking Anthropogony and Theology (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 168, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2016), pp. 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004322929 (2013) illustrates the usefulness of a cognitive science approach by considering v. 28 from such a perspective. Shantz focuses in particular on the contribution of emotions to social action. In this instance, the role that disgust plays in identifying social differences is highlighted. Jason N. Yuh 92 67 D.C. Duling, “Social-Scientific Comments on ‘Neither Judean nor Greek’ (Gal 3:28)”, in: D.L. Matson and K.C. Richardson (eds.), One in Christ Jesus: Essays on Early Christianity and “All That Jazz”, in Honor of S. Scott Bartchy (Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), pp. 35–68. (2019) utilises cognitive science, memory studies, theories on embodiment and ritual to explain why Paul’s brief reference to baptism in v. 27 would have been effective. According to Yuh, Paul uses it to strengthen his authority over the Galatians but also to underline his solidarity with them.

5. Theological issues

5.1 Tradition behind Paul’s theology

Troy W. Martin 93 68 R. Odudele, “Unity in Diversity for Sustainable Development in Nigeria: A Sociological Exegesis of Galatians 3:28”, Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 20:2 (2018), pp. 148–157. (2003) identifies several problems in the hypothesis that v. 28 is based on a baptismal formula, amongst others that such a view presupposes that this statement was not adapted to its situation by Paul. Martin argues that one should rather link the three antitheses to the situational context of the letter and particularly to the fact that they can all be linked to the covenant of circumcision – an issue that was central to the Galatian controversy. Bernard C. Lategan 94 69 J.L. Caballero, “La Promesa a Abrahán según Ga 3,1–29”, Scripta Theologica 36:1 (2004), pp. 259–272. (2012) also finds the notion of a pre-Pauline origin of v. 28 implausible, in particular, because of the fact that it gives rise to a logical problem. Scholars claim that Paul makes an original statement but then, at the same time, assume that he uses a pre-Pauline formula. Instead, Lategan proposes that it should be understood as a conscious statement by Paul himself. Štefan Paluchník 95 70 M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Printing House, 2005). Updated version: M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Library of New Testament Studies 344, London: T & T Clark, 2007). See also: M. Hietanen, “The Argumentation in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9:2 (2007), pp. 99–120. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52342 (2016) examines the way in which Paul handled older traditions. One of the examples that are discussed is this passage, in which case Paluchník accepts that Paul made use of a pre-Pauline baptismal tradition.

5.2 God

Atsuhiro Asano 96 71 See the 2007 version, p. 137. (2015) links Paul’s reference to unity in Christ (3:28) to God’s motherliness, as reflected in the creation story: “God’s creation of humankind in its wholeness of male and female reflects the image of the Creator… In establishing his community and presenting the new salvation history, for example in Paul’s ecclesiology and soteriology, a more holistic view of God is reflected”. 97 72 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 142–145. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1

5.3 Christology

David G. Horell 98 73 P. Eisenbaum, “Is Paul the Father of Misogyny and Antisemitism?”, Cross Currents 50:4 (2000), pp. 506–524. (2000) points out that the conviction expressed in v. 28 that distinctions such as those between Jews and Gentiles are not important in the construction of the Christian community is based on Paul’s corporate Christology. This corporate Christology is the basis of a controversial notion of community between Jews and Gentiles.

5.4 Anthropology and ethnicity

Miroslav Kocúr 99 74 W. Braun, “Body, Character and the Problem of Femaleness in Early Christian Discourse”, Religion & Theology 9:1&2 (2002), pp. 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1163/157430102X00061 (2003) discusses Paul’s treatment of nationality/ethnicity in 3:23–29 and in Romans 10:12–21. These texts show that he regarded Jewishness as something temporary and of limited importance, providing a new form of self-identification in Christ. Kocúr also points out the implications of this insight for believers of our time. Denise Kimber Buell and Caroline Johnson Hodge 100 75 A. Standhartinger, “Geschlechterkonstruktionen bei Paulus: Feministische Zugänge zu Galater 3,27f und Römer 7,1–6”, Una Sancta 58:4 (2003), pp. 339–349. (2004) challenge interpretations of Pauline letters (amongst others of v. 28) based on the notion of ethnicity as a “given”. Instead, they propose a dynamic approach that is based on the insight that notions of ethnicity and race are constructed socially. Accordingly, they illustrate how Paul can be interpreted in an imaginative way so that differences between people are neither removed nor ranked hierarchically. On the basis of Romans 8, Galatians 3:26–27, 4:4–7 and Ephesians 1:4–5, Antonio Aranda 101 76 D.B. Martin, “The Queer History of Galatians 3:28: ‘No Male and Female’”, in: D.B. Martin (ed.), Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville KY/London: Westminster John Knox, 2006), pp. 77–90. (2006) summarises Paul’s view of the divine image in humankind as follows: Christ is God’s image and when humans are conformed to Christ’s image, they become God’s image in Christ. According to Charles H. Cosgrove 102 77 J. Punt, “Power and Liminality, Sex and Gender, and Gal 3:28: A Postcolonial, Queer Reading of an Influential Text”, Neotestamentica 44:1 (2010), pp. 140–166. (2006), v. 28 sheds some light on the question as to whether Paul valued ethnicity: “Certainly in his vision of the final conclusion of God’s saving work, Paul sees the end of life as we know it. In that consummation of all things, ethnic differences will disappear, giving way to the ultimate. In the meantime, penultimately, they both come to an end and are preserved. The ultimate qualifies their penultimate preservation.” 103 78 J.A. Marchal, “Bodies Bound for Circumcision and Baptism: An Intersex Critique and the Interpretation of Galatians”, Theology & Sexuality 16:2 (2010), pp. 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1558/tse.v16i2.163 Updated Lung-kwong Lo 104

Appalling Bodies: Queer Figures before and after Paul’s Letters (New York NY: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 68–112. version: J.A. Marchal, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190060312.001.0001

(2010) disagrees with scholars who interpret v. 28 as annulling ethnic diversity and argues that one should rather take both unity and diversity among different ethnic groups seriously. Aaron Sherwood 105 79 M.B. Kartzow, “‘Asking the Other Question’: An Intersectional Approach to Galatians 3:28 and the Colossian Household Codes”, Biblical Interpretation 18:4/5 (2010), pp. 364–389. https://doi.org/10.1163/156851510X517591 (2013) is of the opinion that ethnicity is one of the issues that Paul sweeps aside in v. 28 and that he rather focuses on social unity (not uniformity), in particular within the church. William S. Campbell 106 80 M.B. Kartzow, “Towards an Intersectional Hermeneutics: Constructing Meaning with and Not of Galatians 3–4”, in: E.-M. Becker and K. Mtata (eds.), Pauline Hermeneutics: Exploring the “Power of the Gospel” (LWF Studies 2016/3, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2017), pp. 85–97. (2013) is of the opinion that Paul did not oppose all ethnic distinctions. From Paul’s letters, it is clear that he distinguished between Jews and Greeks. He thus did not advocate cultural or social uniformity. According to Ryan Schellenberg 107 81 B. Kahl, “Galatians: On Discomfort About Gender and Other Problems of Otherness”, in: L. Schottroff, M.-T. Wacker, C. Janssen, B. Wehn and M. Rumscheidt (eds.), Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature (Grand Rapids MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2012), pp. 755–766. English version of: B. Kahl, “Der Brief an die Gemeinden in Galatien: Vom Unbehagen der Geschlechter und anderen Problemen des Andersseins”, in: L. Schottroff, M.-T. Wacker, C. Janssen and B. Wehn (eds.), Kompendium feministische Bibelauslegung (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1999, 2nd corrected edition), pp. 603–611. (2015), ethnicity was important to Paul. This is also true of v. 28, since, although he believed that Gentile believers gained a new ethnic affiliation, this did not mean that they lost their original ethnic affiliation. Ole Jakob Filtvedt 108 82 Op. cit., p. 764. (2016) disagrees with Denise Kimber Buell and Caroline Johnson Hodge 109 83 A.J. Adelakun, “Complementarians versus Egalitarians: An Exegesis of Galatians 3:28 from Nigerian Cultural Perspective”, Ogbomoso Journal of Theology 17:3 (2012), pp. 77–95. who reject a metaphorical interpretation of Paul’s ethnic language. Filtvedt illustrates how a metaphorical reading of vv. 26–29 makes sense and helps one to understand why Paul rejected the notion that Galatian believers should be circumcised. Nikki Holland 110 84 J.A. Adewuya, “Galatians 3:28 and the African Story”, in: D.L. Matson and K.C. Richardson (eds.), One in Christ Jesus: Essays on Early Christianity and “All That Jazz,” in Honor of S. Scott Bartchy (Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), pp. 184–198. (2018) reads the Letter to Philemon in the light of v. 28. In Philemon, Paul supersedes earthly hierarchies by means of the notion of fellowship in several different ways: Onesimus’s role, having Gentiles as family members, and by addressing Apphia as an equal. On the basis of 3:26–28, 1 Corinthians 7:17–24 and 12:1–31, Luca Castiglioni 111 85 M.-T. Wacker, “Postcolonial Approaches to Gal 3.27–28 to Achieve Diversity in Asian Christianity”, in: D.F. Pilario, F. Wilfred and H.P. Ho (eds.), Asian Christianities (Concilium 2018/1, London: SCM, 2018), pp. 47–55. (2019) argues that Paul’s view on equality and differences between human beings was decisively influenced by his eschatological perspective. Equality between believers and all human beings stemmed from the unity between believers in Christ.

5.5 Israel, covenant and Abraham

In an investigation of Paul’s theology of Israel, Richard H. Bell 112 86 P.V.S. David, “A Postcolonial Reading of Galatians 3:28”, in: D.F. Pilario, F. Wilfred and H.P. Ho (eds.), Asian Christianities (2018/1, London: SCM, 2018), pp. 37–45. (2005) considers Galatians 3 and 4 as well as 6:17. Bell finds evidence in these parts of the letter that Paul believed that the church, consisting of Gentile and Jewish believers, replaced Israel as God’s people. Scott W. Hahn 113 87 M. Yasuda, “‘One in Christ’: Where the Gender Binary Is Transcended: Queering the Gender Binary in Galatians 3:28c ‘No Male and Female’”, Siwô’ Revista de Teología/Revista de Estudios Sociorreligiosos 12:1 (2019), pp. 101–118. https://doi.org/10.15359/siwo.12-1.4 (2009) investigates the covenant in Scripture from a canonical perspective. With regard to Galatians 3 and 4, Hahn states: “Paul argues for the priority and primacy of the Abrahamic covenant — rather than the Mosaic — as the foundational covenant with Israel and ultimately with all mankind. … In contrast to the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant — at least as renewed after the golden calf and other rebellions — is secondary and subordinate in Paul’s eyes.” 114 88 J.T. Kaalund, “In Christ, but Not of Christ: Reading Identity Differences Differently in the Letter to the Galatians”, in: M.J. Smith and J.Y. Choi Michael Riccardi 115

Minoritized Women Reading Race and Ethnicity: Intersectional Approaches to Constructed Identity and Early Christian Texts (Feminist Studies and Sacred Texts Series, Lanham MD: Lexington Books, 2020), pp. 23–44. (eds.),

(2014) disagrees with scholars who take Paul’s reference to Gentiles who believe in Christ as the “seed” of Abraham (in v. 29) as an indication that the church is the spiritual Israel. That Jesus is the “seed” of Abraham means that all the Abrahamic blessings were fulfilled. This includes the national promises to Israel. According to Donald Cobb 116 89 M.J. Smith, “Hagar’s Children Still Ain’t Free: Paul’s Counterterror Rhetoric, Constructed Identity, Enslavement, and Galatians 3:28”, in: M.J. Smith and J.Y. Choi (eds.), Minoritized Women Reading Race and Ethnicity: Intersectional Approaches to Constructed Identity and Early Christian Texts (Lanham MD: Lexington Books, 2020), pp. 45–70. (2015), in Galatians 3 and 4, Paul does not react against the teaching of his opponents by merely opposing law and grace or law and faith as is often claimed. Rather, he reacts to an argument about the covenant by means of an argument about a different covenant. In another study, Cobb 117 90 H. Moxnes, “Household and Gender: Interpretation in Dialogue between the Contexts of the New Testament and Contemporary Cultures”, Stellenbosch Theological Journal 6:1 (2020), pp. 103–122. https://doi.org/10.17570/stj.2020.v6n1.a07 (2016) investigates the use of the term διαθήκη (“covenant” or “will”) in Galatians 3–4 and points out its importance in Paul’s theology. The redemption that God offers in Christ was structured by the law and the promises of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and new covenants. Philip la G. du Toit 118 91 C. Shantz, “Emotion, Cognition, and Social Change: A Consideration of Galatians 3:28”, in: I. Czachesz and R. Uro (eds.), Mind, Morality and Magic: Cognitive Science Approaches in Biblical Studies (Bible World, Durham: Acumen, 2013), pp. 251–270. (2018) critically evaluates the Radical New Perspective on Paul as well as the Messianic Judaist approach to Galatians and then highlights the criteria that Paul identifies for membership of the covenant in Galatians 3: a contrast between faith/works and Spirit/flesh and between the old era in the law/new era in Christ. This continues the promise to Abraham, but in a renewed, redrawn fashion. Miguel G. Echevarria Jr. 119 92 J.N. Yuh, “Analysing Paul’s Reference to Baptism in Galatians 3.27 through Studies of Memory, Embodiment and Ritual”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41:4 (2019), pp. 478–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x19832207 (2019) discusses the notion of inheritance in Paul’s letters. In the case of Galatians, Echevarria argues that Paul uses the term “promise” to refer to the land promised to Abraham and his offspring but understands it as referring eschatologically to the entire world that is still to come and that his views in this regard thus differ from later Jewish views on the matter.

5.6 Law

Holly Taylor Coolman 120 93 T.W. Martin, “The Covenant of Circumcision (Genesis 17:9–14) and the Situational Antitheses in Galatians 3:28”, Journal of Biblical Literature 122:1 (2003), pp. 111–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/3268093 (2010) opts for replacing the notion of supersession with a focus on Christ in relation to the law and the law in relation to Christ. In the case of v. 28, Taylor stresses the fact that being clothed in Christ depicts the context within which the obligation of individuals is placed.

5.7 Soteriology

Jason Maston (2012) 121 94 B.C. Lategan, “Reconsidering the Origin and Function of Galatians 3:28”, Neotestamentica 46:2 (2012), pp. 274–286. See also: B.C. Lategan, “Some Remarks on the Origin and Function of Galatians 3:28”, in: J. Krans, B.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, P.-B. Smit and A. Zwiep (eds.), Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer (Novum Testamentum Supplements 149, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2013), pp. 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004250369_003 disagrees with scholars who are of the opinion that Paul’s apocalyptic theology in Galatians implies the absence of salvation history. Maston detects a notion of salvation history underlying 3:15–4:7 according to which the period of the law is portrayed as a period of “Unheil”. John W. Taylor 122 95 Š. Paluchník, “Der Apostel Paulus und die älteren christlichen Traditionen”, Communio Viatorum 58:1 (2016), pp. 55–76. (2012) believes that scholars tend to interpret the relationship between Gentiles and Jews in Galatians in a wrong way. According to vv. 25–26, (as well as vv. 13–14 and 4:4–7), a mutual independence exists: Gentiles receive the blessing of Abraham, since Jesus liberated the Jews from the curse of the law and Jewish believers receive the Spirit, since Gentiles received the blessings and became children of God. Benjamin Schliesser 123 96 A. Asano, “Motherliness of God: A Search for Maternal Aspects in Paul’s Theology”, in: G.L. Green, S.T. Pardue and K.-K. Yeo (eds.), The Trinity among the Nations: The Doctrine of God in the Majority World (Grand Rapids MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2015), pp. 131–133. Also available in: A. Asano, “Motherliness of God: A Search for Maternal Aspects in Paul’s Theology”, in: G.L. Green, S.T. Pardue and K.-K. Yeo (eds.), Majority (2016) opts for a “third view” in the “faith of Christ” debate: from vv. 23–26 it is clear that Paul did not regard faith as an individual event (i.e., neither as the faith of Christ nor of the believer) but viewed it primarily as an eschatological event: faith “came” and “was revealed”. Shuji Ota 124

(Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2020), pp. 87–89.World Theology: Christian Doctrine in Global Context

(2016) draws attention to the foundational role that the faith of Abraham has in Galatians 3 and works out the implications of this insight, in particular that Paul has a holistic view of faith.

5.8 Ecclesiology

General studies Gordon D. Fee 125 97 Op. cit., (2015), p. 130. (2004) highlights the implications of the “newness” of the new creation for Paul’s ecclesiology. Cultural structures still exist, but they should no longer be given any significance. Doug Heidebrecht 126 98 D.G. Horrell, “‘No Longer Jew or Greek’: Paul’s Corporate Christology and the Construction of Christian Community”, in: D.G. Horrell and C.M. Tuckett (eds.), Christology, Controversy and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole (Novum Testamentum Supplements 99, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2000), pp. 321–344. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047400417_017 (2005) emphasises the importance of reading v. 28 in the light of the letter as a whole and related passages in the New Testament. Such a reading shows that v. 28 does not only refer to equality when it comes to salvation. Distinctions that are typical in society should also be addressed in the body of Christ. Assisi Saldanha 127 99 M. Kocúr, National and Religious Identity: A Study in Galatians 3,23–29 and Romans 10,12–21 (Österreichische Biblische Studien 24, Frankfurt/New York NY: Peter Lang, 2003). (2006) points out that this pericope does not merely address the status of Gentile Christians. It also implies that Gentiles and Jews are one in Christ – something that is objectively based on the faith of Christ. Unity between Jews and Gentiles in Christ is thus upheld. Günther H. Juncker 128 100 D.K. Buell and C.J. Hodge, “The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul”, Journal of Biblical Literature 123:2 (2004), pp. 235–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/3267944 (2007) interprets “Israel” in Romans 9:6b as referring to the spiritual Israel (i.e., the church) and not to a faithful remnant from Israel. Juncker finds a similar tendency in Paul’s depiction of Abraham as spiritual father in Galatians 3, in the typological interpretations of the patriarchs in Galatians 3 and of Isaac and Ishmael in 4:21–31. In a study of Paul’s letters as letters of worship, John Paul Heil 129 101 A. Aranda, “Imagen de Dios en Cristo – Hijos de Dios en Cristo: Una Relectura de la Doctrina Antropológica Paulina”, Scripta Theologica 38:2 (2006), pp. 599–615. (2011) highlights the following aspects of ritual worship in the letter: worship in the letter opening (1:1–5), the link between the eucharist and worship in the Antioch incident (2:11–21), the effect of baptism on ethical worship (3:26–29, worked out in 4:1–11 and 5:16–6:10), and worship in the letter closing (6:11–18). Aaron Sherwood 130 102 C.H. Cosgrove, “Did Paul Value Ethnicity?”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68:2 (2006), pp. 268–290. See also: C.H. Cosgrove, “Paul and Ethnicity: A Selective History of Interpretation”, in: M.D. Given (ed.), Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle (Peabody MA/Edinburgh: Hendrickson, 2010), pp. 71–98. (2013) is of the opinion that ethnicity is one of the issues that Paul sweeps aside in v. 28, to focus instead on social unity (not uniformity), in particular within the church. Yann Redalié 131 103 Op. cit., p. 279. Emphasis Cosgrove. (2017) draws attention to Paul’s “intercultural ecclesiology”. He interpreted a basic baptismal tradition in different ways, depending on the particular situation. The three examples that Redalié discusses come from vv. 23–29, 1 Corinthians 12:11–14 and Colossians 3:10. Sacraments Thomas A. Rand 132 104 L.-k. Lo, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Galatians 3,28 Revisited”, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 27:2 (2010), pp. 25–33. (2001) argues that in Galatians, Paul invoked rituals such as baptism and communion to signify the movement from the old age to the new age of the Spirit and to inculturate the gospel in the communal life of the readers. Debbie Hunn 133 105 A. Sherwood, Paul and the Restoration of Humanity in Light of Ancient Jewish Traditions (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 82, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2013), pp. 217–221. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004235472 (2004) contends that Paul does not refer to water baptism in v. 27. A reference to Spirit baptism fits the context better. In a study on baptism in the first five centuries, Everett Ferguson 134 106 W.S. Campbell, “Differentiation and Discrimination in Paul’s Ethnic Discourse”, Transformation 30:3 (2013), pp. 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265378813490472 (2009) notes that v. 27 shows that what distinguishes Christian baptism from other similar rituals is the relationship to Christ – that one is baptised “into” Christ. J. Ross Wagner 135 107 R. Schellenberg, “Seed of Abraham (Friesen?): Universality and Ethnicity in Paul”, Direction 44:1 (2015), pp. 16–29. (2011) looks at Paul’s notion of baptism into Christ in v. 27 and in some other Pauline letters in order to highlight inherent tensions in the “particularist universalism” underlying Paul’s baptism theology. According to Teresa Kuo-Yu Tsui 136 108 O.J. Filtvedt, “A ‘Non-Ethnic’ People”, Biblica 97:1 (2016), pp. 101–120. (2012), in v. 27 (and in Romans 6:3), Paul refers to baptism apocalyptically in the sense that it points forward to the final transformation, the resurrection, that is based on the apocalyptic Christ event. Gitte Buch-Hansen 137 109 D.K. Buell and C.J. Hodge, “The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul”, Journal of Biblical Literature 123:2 (2004), pp. 235–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/3267944 (2014) discusses baptism and notions on generation/genealogy in Galatians, showing how Paul navigates between Jewish notions of genealogy and Hellenistic ideas about generation, in particular Aristotelian ideas about generation as illustrated in De generatione animalium. This Aristotelian notion is combined with the notion that Christ literally became Abraham’s seed. According to Joshua Garroway 138 110 N. Holland, “Philemon in Light of Galatians 3:28”, Priscilla Papers 32:3 (2018), pp. 12–16. (2016), Paul did not replace circumcision with baptism. He reinterpreted circumcision (an initiatory rite into Judaism) in the sense that he believed that circumcision was achieved by means of baptism. Christoph Heil 139 111 L. Castiglioni, “Uguaglianza Battesimale e Differenze Carismatiche: La Prospettiva Paolina Fondamentale (I)”, Scuola Cattolica 147:4 (2019), pp. 667–693. (2016) is of the opinion that the interpretation of rituals in Early Christianity was influenced by notions of piety in the mystery cults. In Galatians, this can be seen in Paul’s reference to circumcision as castration (5:12), having as its background the emasculation associated with the Cybele cult, and the clothing referred to in the context of baptism (3:27), having as its background clothing metaphors in Hellenistic mystery cults. Allan J. McNicol 140 112 R.H. Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.184, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 160–180. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157300-2 (2017) highlights the link between baptism and moral life in Galatians. Paul understood Christian life as “new creation” expressed in living according to “the law of Christ”; baptism was an integral event in this enterprise.

5.9 Spirituality

Robert James Mason 141 113 S.W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises (Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library, New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2009). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvs32tbq (2014) draws attention to the notion of “eschatological ascetism” in v. 28: “Paul’s ascetic proclivity followed a coenobitic path of communal relationships with all likeminded followers of Jesus – a community of individuals united in their endeavor to deemphasize culturally generated social constructions of importance.” 142 114 Op. cit., p. 276. Kevin J. Vanhoozer 143 115 M. Riccardi, “The Seed of Abraham: A Theological Analysis of Galatians 3 and Its Implications for Israel”, The Master’s Seminary Journal 25:1 (2014), pp. 51–64. (2015) interprets the notion of putting on Christ (v. 27) from the perspective of a theodramatic approach to theology. Doctrine helps believers to understand what they are in Christ and directs them to participate in him and act our parts in the redemption drama.

5.10 Ethics

Most of the contributions that were published on this pericope and in particular on v. 28 were devoted to ethical issues. Scholars addressed the ethics reflected in this verse from a variety of perspectives: some were of a more general nature; some addressed a particular set of opposites that Paul mentions here in detail and some studies were critical of what Paul was trying to do here. Studies of a more general nature Ed L. Miller 144 116 D. Cobb, “Galates 3–4: Une alliance ni abrogée ni modifiée”, La Revue Réformée 275 (2015), pp. 1–30. (2002) believes that v. 28 is not the great egalitarian text it is often assumed to be. It refers to the soteriological unity that all believers have in Christ, but this does not annul the social differences between them. Andrew D. Clarke 145 117 D.E. Cobb, “What Paul Says About the Covenants in Galatians 3–4”, Unio cum Christo 2:2 (2016), pp. 173–194. https://doi.org/10.35285/ucc2.2.2016.art10 (2002) investigates Romans 16 in the light of v. 28 and concludes that the greetings in Romans demonstrates Paul’s theology of inclusiveness – in ethnic, social and gender terms. John H. Elliott 146 118 P. la G. du Toit, “Galatians 3 and the Redefinition of the Criteria of Covenant Membership in the New Faith-Era in Christ”, Neotestamentica 52:1 (2018), pp. 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1353/neo.2018.0002 (2003) disagrees with scholars who believe that Jesus created a community of equals that were structured as egalitarian house churches after his death. Elliott also disagrees with scholars who interpret v. 28 as indicating an equalisation of statuses and roles. It only shows that social distinctions were no longer determinative for being in Christ. Douglas A. Campbell 147 119 M.G. Echevarria Jr., The Future Inheritance of Land in the Pauline Epistles (Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, 2019), pp. 104–140. (2003) views v. 28 as an admirable summary of Paul’s gospel. It clearly stipulates the negations caused by the reconciliation in Christ, thus illustrating the eschatological logic of Paul’s gospel. Kathy Ehrensperger 148 120 H.T. Coolman, “Christological Torah”, Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 5:1 (2010), pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.6017/scjr.v5i1.1557 (2004) discusses the dynamic underlying Paul’s theologising and cites v. 28 and Romans 9:24 as examples. According to Ehrensperger, this dynamic is best described as “a vivid process of dialogic interaction between the Scriptures, the Christ-event and the actual life of the communities.” 149 121 J. Maston, “The Nature of Salvation History in Galatians”, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 2:2 (2012), pp. 89–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/26426549 Michel Serres 150 122 J.W. Taylor, “The Eschatological Interdependence of Jews and Gentiles in Galatians”, Tyndale Bulletin 63:2 (2012), pp. 291–316. https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.29352 (2006) understands v. 28 as meaning that there is not any belonging in the sense of class, sex, language or nation anymore. There is only one identity: “I”, i.e., the “I” in Christ. Derek Woodard-Lehman 151 123 B. Schliesser, “‘Christ-Faith’ as an Eschatological Event (Galatians 3.23–26): A ‘Third View’ on πίστις Χριστοῦ”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38:3 (2016), pp. 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X15621654 (2007) explores a dispersive universality not requiring others to be like oneself but by one identifying with them. This is linked to this passage and 2:19–20: “[B]aptism identifies the baptisand with Christ, inaugurates the new life of Christ living within, and initiates ongoing identification with others. The politics of baptismal identification is performative peacemaking; a pneumasomatics of identity that is simultaneously a body politics and a politics of bodies.” 152 124 S. Ota, “The Holistic pistis and Abraham’s Faith (Galatians 3)”, Hitotsubashi Journal of Arts & Sciences 57:1 (2016), pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15057/28246 Denis Fricker 153 125 G.D. Fee, “Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians 3:26–29”, in: R.W. Pierce and R.M. Groothuis (eds.), Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy (Leicester/Downers Grove IL: Apollos/InterVarsity Press, 2004), pp. 172–185. (2009) points out that many exegetes interpret v. 28 as if it referred exclusively to some kind of utopia. By means of an analysis of the verse and a comparison thereof to Mark 10:6–8, Fricker shows that such an approach is not correct. David E. Aune 154 126 D. Heidebrecht, “Distinction and Function in the Church: Reading Galatians 3:28 in Context”, Direction 34:2 (2005), pp. 181–193. (2010) investigates Early Christianity in the light of v. 28. Aune explains how Jesus dramatised a new notion of equality before God and how Paul’s view of human equality (which he limited to the church of God) also signalled a change in one’s attitude towards other people. Bruce Hansen 155 127 A. Saldanha, “‘The Faith of Christ’: The Objective Basis of the Unity between Jew and Greek”, Indian Theological Studies 43:3/4 (2006), pp. 425–469. (2010) focuses on Paul’s social vision as found in v. 28, 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Colossians 3:11. Hansen proposes that Paul’s vision is best explained by means of theories on ethnicity. Paul viewed believers as a new ethnic group that had been created through participation in Christ, with all other norms being relativised. Aquiles Ernesto Martínez 156 128 G.H. Juncker, “‘Children of Promise’: Spiritual Paternity and Patriarch Typology in Galatians and Romans”, Bulletin for Biblical Research 17:1 (2007), pp. 131–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/26424196 (2011) explores the prophetic scope of this pericope. One should look critically at sociological strata in our world and why certain people are excluded, sometimes even moving beyond Paul’s own example, who did not always act consistently. A. Sue Russell 157 129 J.P. Heil, The Letters of Paul as Rituals of Worship (Eugene OR: Cascade, 2011), pp. 64–74. (2014) explains the contradictions between Paul’s statement in v. 28 and other instances in the Pauline tradition, where hierarchical structures are reinforced, by means of three concepts formulated by Victor Turner: liminality, structure and anti-structure. Pauline communities did not abolish societal structures but redefined the way in which people were to relate to each other within these structures. D. Francois Tolmie 158 130 A. Sherwood, Paul and the Restoration of Humanity in Light of Ancient Jewish Traditions (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 82, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2013), pp. 217–221. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004235472 (2014) points out that v. 28 has often been interpreted in such a way as to exclude or turn away certain people and thus advises that one should deliberately opt for interpreting this verse so that people are included and liberated. Wolfgang Stegemann 159 131 Y. Redalié, “Paolo, un’Ecclesiologia Interculturale?”, Protestantesimo 72:4 (2017), pp. 355–367. (2014) distinguishes between four ways of interpreting v. 28: the text promotes a radical egalitarianism annulling all differences, it refers only to soteriological issues and has no practical implications for daily life, it refers primarily to the ritual of baptism and does not focus primarily on everyday life (although practical implications are not excluded), and it does not refer to the eradication of differences between people, but to the relativisation of such differences in the light of the new identity in Christ. Stegemann opts for the fourth option and explains the implications of such a choice. This pericope is one of the examples that Stephen Richard Turley 160 132 T.A. Rand, “Set Free and Set Right: Ritual, Theology, and the Inculturation of the Gospel in Galatia”, Worship 75:5 (2001), pp. 453‑468. (2015) uses in a study of ritualised washings and meals in Galatians and 1 Corinthians. One of the issues that Turley emphasises in this case is that Paul appeals to the fact that their baptised bodies witness to the Messianic age. This means that their bodies are oriented towards Christ and towards one another – an insight that should transform their relationships to one another. Jan Lambrecht 161 133 D. Hunn, “The Baptism of Galatians 3:27: A Contextual Approach”, The Expository Times 115:11 (2004), pp. 372–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/001452460411501103 (2017) argues that “one” in v. 28d means neither “one person” nor “the One New Man”. In this context, it means the same as “equal”. In Christ, everybody has an equal status. Elaine Padilla 162 134 E. Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 147–148. (2017) develops a politics of love on the basis of vv. 26–28. Such a revolutionary form of love can enable people to extend themselves to the limit, denounce practices intended to fragmentise and heal what has been violently torn apart. On the basis of vv. 26–28 and five other New Testament texts, Jason Goroncy 163 135 J.R. Wagner, “Baptism ‘into Christ Jesus’ and the Question of Universalism in Paul”, Horizons in Biblical Theology 33:1 (2011), pp. 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1163/019590811X571715 (2017) argues that believers’ new identity in Christ does not annul their other identities, but rather that all boundary markers have to be removed. Michel Gourgues 164 136 T.K.-Y. Tsui, “‘Baptized into His Death’ (Rom 6,3) and ‘Clothed with Christ’ (Gal 3,27): The Soteriological Meaning of Baptism in Light of Pauline Apocalyptic”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 88:4 (2012), pp. 395–417. https://doi.org/10.2143/ETL.88.4.2957935 (2017) notes that v. 28 is probably a pre-Pauline baptismal tradition going back to the first generation of believers, thus reflecting the conviction that in Christ inequalities may not be maintained anymore. This is very important for the notion of equal dignity in our times. According to Stephen J. Patterson 165 137 G. Buch-Hansen, “Paulus i Aristoteles’ Hønsegård: Dåb og Genealogi i Galaterbrevet”, Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 77:1 (2014), pp. 9–26. (2018), vv. 26–28 contain the oldest ancient creed of Christianity. Paul did not create it and did not fully accept it but by quoting it he preserved it. Patterson emphasises that this creed did not focus on salvation but on the commitment of the first believers to fight against social distinctions classifying certain people as inferior and explains in detail how the creed functioned in Early Christianity. Luca Castiglioni 166 138 J. Garroway, “Engendering Judaism: Paul, Baptism, and Circumcision”, in: G. Boccaccini and C.A. Segovia (eds.), Paul the Jew: Rereading the Apostle as a Figure of Second Temple Judaism (Minneapolis MN: Fortress Press, 2016), pp. 219–244. (2019) investigates Paul’s views on equality as depicted in vv. 26–28, 1 Corinthians 7:17–24 and 12:1–31. Castiglioni concludes that Paul bases the notion of equality between people on the unity of God’s children in Christ. Jakobus M. Vorster 167 139 C. Heil, “Beschneidung und Taufe im Galaterbrief: Zur Bedeutung der Mysterienkulte in einem frühchristlichen Grundsatzstreit”, Keryx 4 (2016), pp. 87–98. (2019) considers the value of v. 28 for equality as a human right. This verse was revolutionary in the sense that it annuls all forms of superiority and this principle is very important for developing equality as a value in the discourse on human rights. Studies on “no longer Jew or Greek” Miroslav Kocúr 168 140 A.J. McNicol, “Baptism and the Moral Life”, Christian Studies 29 (2017), pp. 33–46. (2003) discusses Paul’s treatment of nationality/ethnicity in this pericope and in Romans 10:12–21. Paul regarded Jewishness as something temporary and of limited importance, and instead promoted a new form of self-identification in Christ. Kocúr also points out the implications of this insight for believers of our time. Lung-kwong Lo 169 141 R.J. Mason, “Galatians 3:28: An Aspect of Eschatological Ascetism in Paul”, in: D.L. Matson and K.C. Richardson (eds.), One in Christ Jesus: Essays on Early Christianity and “All That Jazz,” in Honor of S. Scott Bartchy (Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), pp. 222–239. (2010) disagrees with scholars who interpret v. 28 as annulling ethnic diversity and argues that one should rather take both unity and diversity among different ethnic groups seriously. William S. Campbell 170 142 Op. cit., p. 237. (2013) is also of the opinion that Paul did not oppose all ethnic distinctions. From his letters, it is clear that he distinguished between Jews and Greeks. He thus did not advocate cultural or social uniformity. According to Ryan Schellenberg 171 143 K.J. Vanhoozer, “Putting on Christ: Spiritual Formation and the Drama of Discipleship”, Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care 8:2 (2015), pp. 147–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/193979091500800203 (2015), ethnicity was important to Paul. This is also true of v. 28, since although he believed that Gentile believers gained a new ethnic affiliation, this did not mean that they lost their original ethnic affiliation. Studies on “no longer slave or free” Nikki Holland 172 144 E.L. Miller, “Is Galatians 3:28 the Great Egalitarian Text?”, The Expository Times 114:1 (2002), pp. 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/001452460211400103 (2018) reads the Letter to Philemon in the light of v. 28. In Philemon, Paul supersedes earthly hierarchies by means of the notion of fellowship in several different ways: by highlighting Onesimus’s role, by portraying Gentiles as family members and by addressing Apphia as an equal. In a book on enslaved leadership in Early Christianity, Katherine A. Shaner 173 145 A.D. Clarke, “Jew and Greek, Slave and Free, Male and Female: Paul’s Theology of Ethnic, Social and Gender Inclusiveness in Romans 16”, in: P. Oakes (ed.), Rome in the Bible and the Early Church (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2002), pp. 103–125. (2018) draws attention to ambiguities in Paul’s letters about slavery. On the one hand, v. 28 states that distinctions between slaves and free are irrelevant, but on the other hand, Paul’s position on manumission in 1 Corinthians 7:20–24 is ambiguous. Studies on “no longer male and female” Martin Ebner 174 146 J.H. Elliott, “The Jesus Movement Was Not Egalitarian but Family-Oriented”, Biblical Interpretation 11:2 (2003), pp. 173–210. https://doi.org/10.1163/156851503765661276 (2000) points out that the baptismal formula in vv. 27–28 was revolutionary in terms of the usual ancient social experience but that Paul did not always keep to it as 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 shows. V. 28 was thus a catalyst for defining gender roles in a new way but did not offer such a definition itself. Klara Butting 175 147 D.A. Campbell, “Reconciliation in Paul: The Gospel of Negation and Transcendence in Galatians 3.28”, in: C.E. Gunton (ed.), The Theology of (2000) discusses various Pauline receptions of the promise in Genesis 2:24 in v. 28, 1 Corinthians 6:13–17, 7:32–34 and Ephesians 5:30–32, arguing that the way in which Paul does so liberates both females and males from any form of gender polarity. According to Brigitte Kahl 176

(London/New York NY: T & T Clark, 2003), pp. 39–65. Reconciliation

(2001), the reference to male/female in v. 28 is not a mere side-quotation. It fits Paul’s overall argument in the letter well and helps to replace a focus on maleness with an ethics of mutuality. In a study of patriarchy of the New Testament, Elma M. Cornelius 177 148 K. Ehrensperger, “Scriptural Reasoning: The Dynamic That Informed Paul’s Theologizing”, Irish Biblical Studies 26:1 (2004), pp. 32–52. (2002) points out that New Testament authors tend to reinforce patriarchy although some exceptions are found in their writings, such as v. 28. According to Mary Rose D’Angelo 178 149 Op. cit., p. 50. (2002), the words “male and female” were interpreted in different ways in Paul’s time. They could be interpreted in any of the following ways: a reference to all human beings, to some kind of disadvantageous relationship or to marriage/sexual intercourse. It thus seems as there was no more agreement in Paul’s time about the implications of the words than in our current situation. Richard Hove 179 150 M. Serres, “Ego credo”, Contagion 12/13 (2006), pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1353/ctn.0.0016 (2002) is of the view that v. 28 states that, regardless of the distinctions made between people, all of them may become children of God but that this does not annul gender-specific roles in church or at home. Richard B. Hays 180 151 D. Woodard-Lehman, “One in Christ Who Lives Within: Dispersive Universality and the Pneuma-Somatics of Identity”, The Bible & Critical Theory 3:3 (2007), pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2104/bc070039 (2004) highlights a tension regarding women in Paul’s symbolic world. On the one hand, one has vv. 26–28 promoting egalitarianism, but on the other hand, a pericope such as 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 suppresses women’s role in the public ministry. According to Hays, this situation is caused by Paul’s dialectical eschatology and the fact that “[t]he transformation of gender roles was not a programmatic emphasis of Paul’s mission; rather, it was an unintended consequence, as the Spirit worked in the churches.” 181 152 Op. cit., p. 1. Austin Busch 182 153 D. Fricker, “‘Il n’y a pas l’homme et la femme’ (Ga 3,28), utopie ou défi?”, Revue des Sciences Religieuses 83:1 (2009), pp. 5–22. https://doi.org/10.4000/rsr.482 (2004) uses the peculiar way in which Paul presents Eve in Romans 7:7–25 to illustrate the implications of Galatians 3:28. Whereas Eve was typically interpreted in terms of a notion of passivity that was linked to femininity, Paul highlights an element of activity that was typically associated with masculinity, thus illustrating the implications of the text in Galatians. F. Gerald Downing 183 154 D.E. Aune, “Galatians 3:28 and the Problem of Equality in the Church and Society”, in: P. Walters (ed.), From Judaism to Christianity: Tradition and Transition: A Festschrift for Thomas H. Tobin, S.J. On the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Novum Testamentum Supplements 136, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2010), pp. 153–183. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004187696.i-336.49 (2005) reads v. 28 against the social background of the first century CE, emphasising that Paul’s view of women differed from commonly-held views in his time. Although he sometimes gave in to social pressure, he never explicitly retracted the statement in v. 28. Robbie F. Castleman 184 155 B. Hansen, “All of You Are One”: The Social Vision of Gal 3.28, 1 Cor 12.13 and Col 3.11 (Library of New Testament Studies 409, London/New York NY: T & T Clark, 2010), p. 195. (2006) draws attention to the “and” in “no longer male and female” that is different from the other two pairs in v. 28. This shows that Paul believed that the distinction between genders was part of God’s creation and that it was upheld and redeemed in Christ. Mimi Haddad 185 156 A.E. Martínez, “Fe Cristiana, Bautismo e Identidad Social: Diálogo con Gál 3,26–29”, Revista Bíblica 73:3/4 (2011), pp. 163–186. (2009) discusses views on women in Pauline texts and argues that the best way to understand Paul’s views is to read them in terms of the central expression of his thoughts as encountered in v. 28. Ben Witherington III 186 157 A.S. Russell, “Galatians 3:28 Beyond Status and Role: Living Anti-Structurally within Structure”, in: D.L. Matson and K.C. Richardson (eds.), One in Christ Jesus: Essays on Early Christianity and “All That Jazz,” in Honor of S. Scott Bartchy (Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), pp. 1–19. (2009) is of the opinion that the rhetorical function of v. 28 might have been to counter the opponents’ attempts to re-establish the patriarchal order of things. However, Paul did not mean that gender distinctions between men and women disappeared. They continued to exist but did not determine one’s standing in the body of Christ. Joachim Kügler 187 158 D.F. Tolmie, “Oor die Interpretasie van Paulus se Uitspraak in Galasiërs 3:28”, Litnet Akademies: ’n Joernaal vir die Geesteswetenskappe, Natuurwetenskappe, Regte en Godsdienswetenskappe 11:2 (2014), pp. 331‑350. (2009) discusses v. 28 as an impulse for a pastoral ministry on gender roles that moves beyond the typical sex/gender divisions. Kügler first shows that it is not adequate to interpret vv. 26–28 in terms of a sex-gender duality as the text refers to various gender roles. Accordingly, one should not fall into the trap of distinguishing between typically “male” and “female” roles in our current context. François Lestang 188 159 W. Stegemann, “Hierarchisierung und Relativierung multipler Identitäten in Galater 3:28”, in: D.L. Matson and K.C. Richardson (eds.), One in Christ Jesus: Essays on Early Christianity and “All That Jazz,” in Honor of S. Scott Bartchy (Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), pp. 20–34. (2012) describes Paul’s view of male and female in v. 28 as an “anthropology in between”. Paul situates the male/female tension between the first and the new creation. In Christ, there exists a relational unity between them, a “transcendent complementarity”. Elian Cuvillier 189 160 S.R. Turley, The Ritualized Revelation of the Messianic Age: Washings and Meals in Galatians and 1 Corinthians (Library of New Testament Studies 544, London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015), pp. 29–58. (2014) investigates v. 28 and Romans 1:26–27, asking where the emphasis falls: on “founding differences” (“différences fondatrices”) or on “messianic refoundation” (“refondation messianique”)? Cuvillier’s investigation identifies three propositions: unconditionally recognising a person without considering origins, quality or heritage, a radical universalism relativising all differences, and an ethics characterised by living in the Messianic age. In a discussion of Paul’s view of the new being in Christ, Peter von der Osten-Sacken 190 161 J. Lambrecht, In Search of Meaning: Collected Notes on the New Testament (2014–2017) (Balti: Scholars’ Press, 2017), pp. 455-461. (2014) draws attention to the fact that the wording of v. 28d reflects Genesis 1:27. This implies that the creation order does not apply where Christ reigns. Gesila Nneka Uzukwu 191 162 E. Padilla, “An Axis of Revolutionary Love”, Toronto Journal of Theology 33:2 (2017), pp. 181–194. https://doi.org/10.3138/tjt.2017-0018 (2015) interprets v. 28 in the light of Paul’s theology of promise, an important issue in Galatians 3 and 4. Because of the promise, males and females now have equal standing in Christ. This should lead to an ethics of solidarity and mutuality. On the basis of v. 28, Jennifer Slater 192 163 J. Goroncy, “Ethnicity, Social Identity, and the Transposable Body of Christ”, Mission Studies 34:2 (2017), pp. 220–245. https://doi.org/10.1163/15733831-12341503 (2015) identifies inclusiveness as an important characteristic of Christian identity and explains how this can make a substantial difference and can guide believers towards gender inclusiveness that is meaningful. Kirsten Laurel Guidero 193 164 M. Gourgues, “‘Ni Juif ni Grec, ni esclave ni libre, ni mâle et femelle’ (Ga 3,28): Sur une contribution de la première génération chrétienne à une affirmation des droits humains”, Science et Esprit 69:2 (2017), pp. 241‑262. (2019) discusses the way in which evangelical Christians understand vv. 26–29, in particular the male/female distinction and argues as follows: “[U]nity in the one body of Christ does not erase differences but consists of cleaving together in and through differences. This cleaving in the midst of difference requires both the baptismal posture of conversion to Christ by forming union with one another and public accountability for interpretations, even where we disagree.” 194 165 S.J. Patterson, The Forgotten Creed: Christianity’s Original Struggle against Bigotry, Slavery, and Sexism (New York NY: Oxford University Press, 2018). See also Yolanda Dreyer’s reflection on Patterson’s work: “Remembering the ‘Oldest Creed’: Overcoming the Age-Old Anomaly”, Neotestamentica 53:2 (2019), pp. 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1353/neo.2019.0018 Yonathan Moss 195 166 L. Castiglioni, “Uguaglianza Battesimale e Differenze Carismatiche: La Prospettiva Paolina Fondamentale (I)”, Scuola Cattolica 147:4 (2019), pp. 667–693. (2020) disagrees with scholars who are of the opinion that Paul’s depiction of gender in v. 28 contradicts the views found on this matter elsewhere in the Pauline writings. Moss proposes that one should not interpret such differences as a contradiction, but rather see them as paradoxes. Both sides of a specific difference are true and should be held in tension. Both are essential for the daily living of believers. Studies on the implications of “no longer male and female” for the ordination of women Several studies were published in which v. 28 was used to argue for the ordination of women in our time, for example, Christine Lienemann-Perrin 196 167 J.M. Vorster, “The Theological-Ethical Implications of Galatians 3:28 for a Christian Perspective on Equality as a Foundational Value in the Human Rights Discourse”, In die Skriflig 53:1 (2019), pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v53i1.2494 (2004), Elelwani B. Farisani 197 168 M. Kocúr, National and Religious Identity: A Study in Galatians 3,23–29 and Romans 10,12–21 (Österreichische Biblische Studien 24, Frankfurt/New York NY: Peter Lang, 2003). (2006), N.T. Wright 198 169 L.-k. Lo, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Galatians 3,28 Revisited”, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 27:2 (2010), pp. 25–33. (2006), Philip B. Payne 199 170 W.S. Campbell, “Differentiation and Discrimination in Paul’s Ethnic Discourse”, Transformation 30:3 (2013), pp. 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265378813490472 (2009) and Jim Reiher 200 171 R. Schellenberg, “Seed of Abraham (Friesen?): Universality and Ethnicity in Paul”, Direction 44:1 (2015), pp. 16–29. (2012). The way in which v. 28 is used in arguments for and against the ordination of women was set out in a publication by The Lutheran Church of Australia 201 172 N. Holland, “Philemon in Light of Galatians 3:28”, Priscilla Papers 32:3 (2018), pp. 12–16. (2005). Studies that are critical of Paul’s view of women Pieter J.J. Botha 202 173 K.A. Shaner, Enslaved Leadership in Early Christianity (New York NY: Oxford University Press, 2018) https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190275068.001.0001 (2000) describes gender relations in the first-century world as fundamentally hierarchical and inherently violent. Botha also investigates some New Testament texts and argues that Paul did not really believe that there was no longer male or female in Christ: “This is an incidental outburst (or an unguarded quotation), nothing more: the thrust of the Letter, its textual world, remains unaffectedly male”. 203 174 M. Ebner, “Wenn alle ‘ein einziger’ sein sollen: Von schönen theologischen Konzepten und ihren praktischen Problemen: Gal 3,28 und 1 Kor 11,2–16”, in: E. Klinger, S. Böhm and T. Seidl (eds.), Der Körper und die Religion: Das Problem der Konstruktion von Geschlechterrollen (Würzburg: Echter, 2000), pp. 159–183. Shaye J.D. Cohen 204 175 K. Butting, “Pauline Variations on Genesis 2.24: Speaking of the Body of Christ in the Context of the Discussion of Lifestyles”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 23:79 (2000), pp. 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X0102307907 (2005) is of a similar view. Paul did not attempt to annul the social boundaries between men and women in v. 28; men and women had different functions and even in the new order women were subordinate to men.

5.11 Eschatology

Douglas A. Campbell 205 176 B. Kahl, “No Longer Male: Masculinity Struggles Behind Galatians 3.28?”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 23:79 (2001), pp. 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X0102307904 (2005) argues that v. 28 may be viewed as a compact articulation of the PPME model (the Pneumatologically Participatory Martyrological Eschatology model) which characterises Paul’s gospel. This model also highlights important ethical actions emanating from Paul’s gospel. In a study of Paul’s references to the kingdom, Réne A. López 206 177 E.M. Cornelius, “Patriarchy and the New Testament”, Acta Patristica et Byzantina 13:1 (2002), pp. 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10226486.2002.11745703 (2011) also looks at the term “inheritance”, raising the question of whether the term only refers to the future or also to a present reality. In the case of v. 29 (as well as v. 18, 4:1, 7 and 30), López is of the opinion that “inheritance” refers to the world to come. According to Scott J. Hafemann 207 178 M.R. D’Angelo, “Gender Refusers in the Early Christian Mission: Gal 3:28 as an Interpretation of Gen 1:27b”, in: C.A. Bobertz and D. Brakke (eds.), Reading in Christian Communities: Essays on Interpretation in the Early Church (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 14, Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), pp. 149–173. (2019), from Galatians 3 and 4 it is clear that Paul had thought that the eschatological restoration had dawned in Christ, thus ending the era of the Sinai covenant. However, the two covenants (of the flesh and of the Spirit respectively) would continue until the present evil age came to an end. Chapter 11: Galatians 4:1–7 In this pericope the issues that received the most attention were the term “the elements of the world” (v. 3) and the interpretation of vv. 4 and 5, in particular the notions “the fullness of time” and “adoption as children”.

1. Background

John T. Fitzgerald 1 179 R. Hove, “Does Galatians 3:28 Negate Gender-Specific Roles?”, in: W. Grudem (ed.), Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (Foundations for the Family Series, Wheaton IL: Crossway Books, 2002), pp. 105–143. (2003) offers a detailed overview of the way in which testaments and last wills functioned in the Graeco-Roman world (“heirs” are mentioned in v. 1). Marc Rastoin 2 180 R.B. Hays, “Paul on the Relation between Men and Women”, in: A.-J. Levine and M. Blickenstaff (eds.), A Feminist Companion to Paul (Cleveland OH: T & T Clark International, 2004), pp. 137–147. (2003) explains how Paul makes use of insights from both the Jewish and Greek cultures in order to persuade the audience in 3:6–4:7. Rastoin discusses aspects found in this section such as diatribe, synagogal sermons, gezerah shawah and status scripti en voluntatis. Birgit van der Lans 3 181 Op. cit., p. 146. (2010) elucidates Paul’s argument on Abraham in Galatians 3 and 4 by means of Jewish texts in which Abraham was regarded as either the father of many nations or the father of the Jews. John K. Goodrich 4 182 A. Busch, “The Figure of Eve in Romans 7:5–25”, Biblical Interpretation 12:1 (2004), pp. 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1163/156851504322887663 (2010) notes that Paul’s reference to an heir in vv. 1–2 has usually been interpreted in terms of Graeco-Roman laws about guardianship but that some incongruities have caused scholars to interpret it rather as an allusion to the exodus. However, Goodrich defends the traditional interpretation, showing that Paul’s depiction of guardians and trustees makes sense in terms of Roman law. Heinz-Josef Fabry 5 183 F.G. Downing, “The Nature(s) of Christian Women and Men”, Theology 108:843 (2005), pp. 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0040571X0510800303 (2014) offers an overview of the use of the notion of the “right time” (a moment in time determined in advance by God) in the LXX, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, in particular in v. 4 and Mark 1:14. Fabry describes the term “the fullness of time” in Galatians as referring to a free, declarative act of sovereignty by the Father.

2. Text-critical, linguistic, stylistic and translation issues

2.1 Text-critical issues

Taras N. Dyatlik 6 184 R.F. Castleman, “The Last Word: Gender, Grace and a Greek Conjunction”, Themelios 32:1 (2006), pp. 57–59. (2018) discusses the issue of conflation in v. 7 and argues that it is safest to assume that the textual variants in this verse were caused neither by conflation or difflation, nor by addition or omission. According to Dyatlik, there are some variants that were caused by other reasons such as doctrinal changes or syntactical improvement.

2.2 Linguistic issues

In a philological note on v. 6, Rosario Pierri 7 185 M. Haddad, “Reading the Apostle Paul through Gal 3:28”, in: C.P. DeYoung (ed.), Coming Together in the 21st Century: The Bible’s Message in an Age of Diversity (Valley Forge PA: Judson, 2009 [1995], revised edition), pp. 73–93. (2006) points out that the term ὅτι (“that” or “because”) may be taken in three ways: causal, declarative and demonstrative-effective. Pierri offers arguments for accepting the first option. According to Anna Rambiert-Kwaśniewska 8 186 B. Witherington III, What’s in the Word: Rethinking the Socio-Rhetorical Character of the New Testament (Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), pp. 113–121. (2020), the term “the fullness of time” (v. 4) is best understood as referring to the fact that the period of the domination of the law has come to an end.

2.3 Stylistic issues

Metaphor Three studies were published on “the elements of the world” (vv. 3 and 9): Martinus C. de Boer 9 187 J. Kügler, “Gal 3,26–28 und die vielen Geschlechter der Glaubenden: Impuls für eine christliche Geschlechtsrollenpastoral jenseits von Sex and Gender”, in: M.E. Aigner and J. Pock (eds.), Geschlecht quer gedacht: Widerstandspotenziale und Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten in kirchlicher Praxis (Werkstatt Theologie 13, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2009), pp. 53–70. Republished in: J. Kügler, “Gal 3,26–28 und die vielen Geschlechter der Glaubenden: Impuls für eine christliche Geschlechtsrollenpastoral jenseits von Sex and Gender”, in: J. Kügler (ed.), Exegese zwischen Religionsgeschichte und Pastoral (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 64, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2017), pp. 347–370. (2007) explains the metaphor in terms of the argumentative context in which Paul uses it, as well as the cultural-historical context of the readers of the letter. De Boer views it as a metonymical reference to beliefs and ritual practices linked in those days to the four elements (earth, air, fire, water). Paul uses it in particular to refer to calendrical observances linked to such practices. After an overview of all the issues that are relevant for this term and the different ways in which it has been interpreted, Dieter T. Roth 10 188 F. Lestang, “‘Ni mâle ni femelle’ (Ga. 3,28): L’anthropologie paulinienne de l’entre-deux”, Revue de l’Université Catholique de Lyon 22 (2012), pp. 15–19. (2014) opts for understanding it as referring to a worldly way of existence distinct from Christ. Neil Martin 11 189 E. Cuvillier, “‘Différences fondatrices’ ou ‘refondation messianique’ de quoi Paul est-il le nom?”, Recherches de Science Religieuse 102:2 (2014), pp. 265–275. https://doi.org/10.3917/rsr.142.0263 (2018) disagrees with scholars who are of the opinion that the term refers to physical elements constituting the world. Martin believes that it refers to fundamental characteristics of the pre-Christian existence. Three other metaphors also received attention: Erin M. Heim 12 190 P. von der Osten-Sacken, Der Gott der Hoffnung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Theologie des Paulus (Studien zu Kirche und Israel: Neue Folge 3, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014), pp. 571–586. (2017) uses contemporary metaphor theory to explain Paul’s use of the adoption metaphor in Galatians and Romans. According to Heim, in v. 5, it should be understood in terms of a Graeco-Roman background. Furthermore, it focuses on the vertical dimension of believers’ existence (the Father initiated the relationship, Christ carried out the mission and the Spirit attests to one’s adoption). Sam Tsang 13 191 G.N. Uzukwu, The Unity of Male and Female in Jesus Christ: An Exegetical Study of Galatians 3.28c in Light of Paul’s Theology of Promise (Library of New Testament Studies: International Studies on Christian Origins 531, London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015). (2005) discusses Paul’s slavery metaphors in Galatians in the light of insights from the New Rhetoric. Tsang divides these metaphors into three categories (apologetic, polemical and didactic) and explains their use by means of concepts borrowed from the New Rhetoric. Paul’s reference to heirs who are minors and thus not being in a better position than slaves (vv. 1–2) is classified as an example of the didactic usage of this metaphor, meant to highlight particular aspects of the history of salvation. In another contribution, Tsang 14 192 J. Slater, “‘Inclusiveness’ – An Authentic Biblical Truth That Negates Distinctions: A Hermeneutic of Gender Incorporation and Ontological Equality in Ancient Christian Thought”, Journal of Early Christian History 5:1 (2015), pp. 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/2222582X.2015.11877319 (2007) explains the use of the Abba (“Father”) metaphor in v. 6 by means of the New Rhetoric: Paul used the metaphor to attack his opponents by claiming that they were excluded from Jesus’ familia. Other stylistic issues One of the examples that Justin King 15 193 K.L. Guidero, “‘No Longer Any Male and Female’? Galatians 3, Baptismal Identity, and the Question of an Evangelical Hermeneutic”, Priscilla Papers 33:3 (2019), pp. 19–27. (2018) discusses in a study of “speech-in-character” in Romans 3:1–9 is Galatians 4:6. According to King, this example shows that Paul was also aware that speech-in-character may be used for non-human entities. Furthermore, King notes that Quintilian also pointed out that one may use speech-in-character for the gods. Shinobu Yoshida 16 194 Op. cit., p. 25. (2019) focuses on Paul’s use of first and second person pronouns in v. 6 and in the previous pericope (3:25–26). In both instances, “you” refers to the recipients (as Gentile believers), but in v. 6, “our” in “our hearts” refers to both Jewish and Gentile believers.

2.4 Translation issues

Gregory Vall 17 195 Y. Moss, “From Contradiction to Paradox: A New Perspective on Galatians 3,28”, Marriage, Families & Spirituality 26:1 (2020), pp. 26–40. https://doi.org/10.2143/int.26.1.3288947 (2003) examines the translation of the terms υἱός (“son”) and υἱοθεσία (“adoption”) in 3:23–4:7 in the NRSV and argues that the inaccurate translation of these terms can only be rectified if one stops trying to avoid male-orientated language in a translation. Timothy Ashworth 18 196 C. Lienemann-Perrin, “The Biblical Foundations for a Feminist and Participatory Theology of Mission”, International Review of Mission 93:368 (2004), pp. 17–34. (2010) suggests that στοιχέω (5:25 and 6:16) and στοιχεῖα (4:3, 9), usually translated as “walk” and “elemental spirits” or “principles” respectively, should rather be translated as “keeping aligned with” (in the sense of “keeping aligned in the footsteps of”) and “things that keep aligned behaviour/give directions for behaviour”. Peter-Ben Smit 19 197 E.B. Farisani, “The Use of Galatians 3:28 in Promoting Gender Equality”, Journal of Constructive Theology 12:1 (2006), pp. 53–65. (2015) disagrees with the usual translation of διαφέρει (“differ from” or “be superior to”) in 4:1 as “differ from”. On syntactical and semantic grounds, Smit argues that it is better to translate it as “being superior to”.

3. Wirkungsgeschichte

Lucas F. Mateo-Seco 20 198 N.T. Wright, “The Biblical Basis for Women’s Service in the Church”, Priscilla Papers 20:4 (2006), pp. 5–10. (2000) offers an overview of the way in which vv. 4–5 were interpreted by the Church Fathers before the Council of Ephesus, culminating in the exegesis of Augustine whose interpretation, in spite of its brevity, integrated most of what had been highlighted in the Latin exegesis before him. In a discussion of vv. 1–7, Eric R. Naizer 21 199 P.B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 2009), pp. 79–104. (2009) emphasises the importance of faith (as opposed to the law) and appropriates this notion for the current context. Believers should always be wary of falling into legalism. Even the good things they do may distort the emphasis on spiritual liberty found in Galatians. Javier Ibañez 22 200 J. Reiher, “Galatians 3:28 – Liberating for Women’s Ministry? Or of Limited Application?”, The Expository Times 123:6 (2012), pp. 272–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014524611431773 (2010) provides a thorough overview of the interpretation of the term “mother” in v. 4 in Greek Patristic writings in the first and second centuries CE, and also discusses the implications of the insights gained in this way. Darren O. Sumner 23 201 Anon., “Galatians 3:26 – 29 and the Ordination of Women”, Lutheran Theological Journal 39:1 (2005) pp. 84–93. (2014) considers Karl Barth’s interpretation of v. 4, in particular from the perspective of classical trinitarianism and Barth’s critical thoughts on the matter as they bear upon the issue of how human temporality relates to divine eternity. Daniel Herskowitz 24 202 P.J.J. Botha, “Submission and Violence: Exploring Gender relations in the First-Century World”, Neotestestamentica 34:1 (2000), pp. 1–38. (2017) explains how the concept of a “moment” (“oieblik” in Danish) was interpreted by Kierkegaard (in the light of v. 4 and 1 Corinthians 15:52) and then taken up and developed further by Martin Heidegger and Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. Stephen J. Chester 25 203 Op. cit., p. 28. (2018) points out that Joseph Lortz and Jared Wickes – the two most important twentieth-century Roman Catholic scholars of Luther – have opposite views of his stance towards religious experience. Chester argues that their views are caused by a polarity in his views in this regard, as can be seen from his exegesis of v. 6.

4. Interpretative approaches

4.1 Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures

Todd A. Wilson 26 204 S.J.D. Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism (Berkeley CA/Los Angeles CA/London: University of California Press, 2005), pp. 72–73. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520212503.001.0001 (2004) claims that Paul uses the theme of Israel’s wilderness apostasy in Galatians. The Galatians are depicted as on the verge of a wilderness apostasy, somewhere between redemption (as happened in Exodus) and inheriting the kingdom of God. Vv. 1–7 is one of the passages in which Wilson finds this notion. Sigve K. Tonstad 27 205 D.A. Campbell, The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 274, London/New York NY: T & T Clark International, 2005), pp. 95–111. https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567661289 For a critical response, see: Joel Thomas Chopp, “Unearthing Paul’s Ethics: Douglas Campbell on Creation, Redemption, and the Christian Moral Life”, Journal of Theological Interpretation 11:2 (2017), pp. 259–276. https://doi.org/10.5325/jtheointe.11.2.0259 (2013) believes that, whereas Paul’s opponents regarded Abraham as the primary proof of their message on circumcision, Paul’s interpretation of Abraham was based on apocalyptic notions and the Akedah. This is expressed primarily by the call “Abba! Father” (in v. 6).

4.2 Rhetorical approaches

Mika Hietanen 28 206 R.A. López, “A Study of Pauline Passages on Inheriting the Kingdom”, Bibliotheca Sacra 168:672 (2011), pp. 443–459. (2005) offers a pragma-dialectical analysis of Galatians 3:1–5:12 and identifies two arguments in this pericope: that Gentiles are liberated because God’s Son was sent, and that they are spiritual heirs as promised. 29 207 S.J. Hafemann, Paul: Servant of the New Covenant: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.435, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), pp. 52–89 https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157702-4 Updated version of: S.J. Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile of Israel in Galatians 3–4”, in: J.M. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 56, Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 329‑371. D. Francois Tolmie 30 1 J.T. Fitzgerald, “Last Wills and Testaments in Graeco-Roman Perspective”, in: J.T. Fitzgerald, T.H. Olbricht and M. White (eds.), Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Novum Testamentum Supplements 110, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2003), pp. 637–672. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047402190_031 (2005) provides a text-based rhetorical analysis of Galatians. Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope is summarised as the use of an analogy to guardianship in order to contrast spiritual slavery and childhood of God. Marc Rastoin 31 2 M. Rastoin, Tarse et Jérusalem: La double culture de l’apôtre Paul en Galates 3,6–4,7 (Analecta Biblica 152, Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2003). (2014) highlights Paul’s masterly rhetorical skills in vv. 1–2. By alluding to freedom, he touches on an issue that was of utmost importance both in the Hellenistic culture and in the Jewish faith.

5. Theological issues

5.1 God

Annang Asumang 32 3 B. van der Lans, “Belonging To Abraham’s Kin: Genealogical Appeals To Abraham as a Possible Background for Paul’s Abrahamic Argument”, in: M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten and J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill 2010), pp. 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004216495_021 (2012) is of the opinion that, apart from soteriological issues, Paul’s opponents also had a problem with the idea of trinitarian worship. Asumang uses v. 6 and Philippians 3:3 as test cases to illustrate that this matter was also in dispute. Scott R. Swain 33 4 J.K. Goodrich, “Guardians, Not Taskmasters: The Cultural Resonances of Paul’s Metaphor in Galatians 4.1–2”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32:3 (2010), pp. 251–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X09357677 (2014) investigates vv. 4–7 from the perspective of the doctrine of the Trinity and argues that this passage “implies a trinitarian theology insofar as it presents the twofold mission of the Son and the Spirit as an instance of God’s immediate, natural agency.” 34 5 H.-J. Fabry, “Zeit und Ewigkeit: Gedanken zur Kairologie in LXX und Qumran”, in: J. Elschenbroich and J. de Vries (eds.), Worte der Weissagung: Studien zu Septuaginta und Johannesoffenbarung: Martin Karrer zum 60. Geburtstag (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 47, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt, 2014), pp. 97–107.

5.2 Christology

Antje and Michael Labahn 35 6 T.N. Dyatlik, “The Conflation in the Epistle to Galatians 4:7”, Gileya 134 (2018), pp. 216–220. See also: T.N. Dyatlik, “Methodology of the Research of the Conflation in the Epistle to Galatians”, Cхід 155:3 (2018), pp. 74–77. https://doi.org/10.21847/1728-9343.2018.3(155).139835 (2000) argue that for Paul the insight that Jesus is the Son of God is the crucial aspect in the proclamation of the gospel as is clear from vv. 4 and 6, as well as 1:16 and 2:20. Klaus Scholtissek 36 7 R. Pierri, “Due Note Filologiche di Greco Biblico”, Liber Annuus 56 (2006), pp. 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.LA.2.303647 (2000) highlights the relationship between the earthly Jesus and Paul’s gospel. Taking v. 4 as a point of departure, Scholtissek argues that Paul did not lose sight of the earthly Jesus but presented him from a post-resurrection perspective. Teresa Wong 37 8 A. Rambiert-Kwaśniewska, “Paul’s ‘Fullness of Time’ (Gal 4:4) and ‘Fullness of Times’ (Eph 1:10)”, Verbum Vitae 38:1 (2020), pp. 199–218. https://doi.org/10.31743/vv.3739 (2007) describes Paul’s Christology reflected in v. 4 (and in Romans 8:3) as “a Christology of the cross”. The cross is depicted as the climax of Paul’s Christology, the most important event in Christ’s life where God revealed himself as Father, in love and power. Roji T. George 38 9 M.C. de Boer, “The Meaning of the Phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in Galatians”, New Testament Studies 53:2 (2007), pp. 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688507000124 (2008) focuses on the incarnate Christ in Paul’s epistles (as in v. 4) and links Paul’s idea of the incarnation of Christ to the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Judaism and the Jesus tradition, rather than to Hellenism. On the basis of v. 4, Waldecir Gonzaga 39 10 D.T. Roth, “What ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ Are the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου?”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 70:1 (2014), pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v70i1.2676 (2019) argues that although Paul was aware of Mary’s virginial conception, he did not focus on it but rather on identifying Jesus with humanity and thus as sharing human fragility and vulnerability. Daniela del Gaudio 40 11 N. Martin, “Returning to the stoicheia tou kosmou: Enslavement to the Physical Elements in Galatians 4.3 and 9?”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40:4 (2018), pp. 434–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x18769794 (2020) views vv. 4–5 from the perspective of Mariology. As the oldest text in the New Testament reflecting the mystery of Mary it may be regarded as the beginning of Mariology. As a virgin, her motherhood shows that the salvation brought by Christ touches humanity from the inside.

5.3 Pneumatology

Peter Dschulnigg 41 12 E.M. Heim, Adoption in Galatians and Romans: Contemporary Metaphor Theories and the Pauline huiothesia Metaphors (Biblical Interpretation Series 153, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2017), pp. 148–199. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004339873 (2001) offers a detailed discussion of all 18 instances of the term “spirit” in Galatians. In the case of 3:14, 4:6, 29 and 5:5, Dschulnigg focuses on the way in which Paul further develops the notion of the Spirit in the letter in the light of the cross, promise, childhood of God and justification. In a study of Paul’s charismatic imperatives, Robby J. Kagarise 42 13 S. Tsang, From Slaves to Sons: A New Rhetoric Analysis on Paul’s Slave Metaphors in His Letter to the Galatians (Studies in Biblical Literature 81, New York NY: Peter Lang, 2005), pp. 116–131. (2014) discusses v. 6. Kagarise summarises Paul’s description of the Spirit in this instance as “the ecstatic Spirit”. On the basis of v. 6 (and Romans 8:9), John R. Coulson 43 14 S. Tsang, “‘Abba’ Revisited: Merging the Horizons of History and Rhetoric through the New Rhetoric Structure for Metaphors”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9 (2007), pp. 121–141. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52343 (2017) argues that Paul was aware of the tradition that Jesus was anointed by the Spirit as God’s Son and that he was raised through the Spirit. However, Paul did not focus on these issues but rather on the Father and the Risen Lord as the source of the Spirit, with Jesus being a pattern for how believers experience the Spirit.

5.4 Cosmology

In a contribution on Paul’s views on principalities and powers, Chris Forbes 44 15 J. King, Speech-in-Character, Diatribe, and Romans 3:1–9: Who’s Speaking When and Why It Matters (Biblical Interpretation Series 163, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2018), pp. 70–71. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373297 (2001) investigates Paul’s reference to “the elements of the world” in vv. 3 and 9. According to Forbes, Paul probably regarded the elements as personifiable spiritual forces that some people wrongly treated as gods. Martinus C. de Boer 45 16 S. Yoshida, “Consideration of Pronominal Shifts in the Epistle to the Galatians 3:25–26 and 4:6”, 新約学研究 47 (2019), pp. 19–38. (2013) investigates the reference of the term “cosmos” in 4:3 and 6:14. In 4:3, it refers to the physical world, and in 6:14, to the religion based on the law. These two uses of the term are linked in the sense that the end of the religion based on the law (6:14) is also the end of the “elements of the world” (4:3). Robert Ewusie Moses 46 17 G. Vall, “Inclusive Language and the Equal Dignity of Women and Men in Christ”, The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 67:4 (2003), pp. 579–606. https://doi.org/10.1353/tho.2003.0002 (2014) discusses the same issue and is of the opinion that the expression refers to both the four basic elements that people thought the world consisted of and the demonic powers that the Galatians were enslaved by before they became believers. Kyu Seop Kim 47 18 T. Ashworth, “Spirit-Led Freedom: Examining a Significant Detail in Galatians”, Scripture Bulletin (Online) 40:2 (2010), pp. 75–87. (2016) is of the opinion that Paul uses the term “the elements of the world” in vv. 3 and 9 in terms of a cosmic dualism to refer to physical perishable elements in the world in the old era that still have to be transformed by the Spirit. In a study of Paul’s views on apocalypse as holy war, Emma Wasserman 48 19 P.-B. Smit, “No Small Difference? Galatians 4.1 and the Translation of διαφέρει”, The Bible Translator 66:2 (2015), pp. 170–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051677015590816 (2018) has a chapter on Paul’s perception of other gods. In the case of Galatians, Wasserman highlights vv. 1–10 and interprets “the elements of the world” in v. 3 as the lesser parts of the world, in particular heavenly bodies, which are then linked to gentile gods in v. 9.

5.5 Anthropology and ethnicity

On the basis of Romans 8, Galatians 3:26–27, 4:4–7 and Ephesians 1:4–5, Antonio Aranda 49 20 L.F. Mateo-Seco, “‘Envió Dios a su Hijo, Nacido de Mujer’ (Gálatas 4,4–5 en el Pensamiento Patrístico Anterior al Concilio de Éfeso)”, Scripta Theologica 32:1 (2000), pp. 13–46. (2006) summarises Paul’s view of the divine image in humankind as follows: Christ is God’s image and when humans are conformed to Christ’s image, they become God’s image in Christ. Alfonso Garciá Marqués 50 21 E.R. Naizer, “The ‘Heir’ through Faith and the ‘Slave’ under the Law: Galatians 4:1–7”, Bangalore Theological Forum 41:2 (2009), pp. 198‑209 (2017) draws out the philosophical implications of v. 4 for understanding the position of Christianity. The blending of the Greek episteme and the Roman ius into the humanitas constituted the “fulness of time”. This means that Christianity is a universal religion and not merely a Hellenised or Romanised religion.

5.6 Israel, covenant and Abraham

In an investigation of Paul’s theology of Israel, Richard H. Bell 51 22 J. Ibañez, “La ‘Mujer’ de Gal. 4,4 en la Patrística Griega de los Siglos I y II”, Estudios Marianos 76 (2010), pp. 305–318. (2005) considers Galatians 3 and 4 as well as 6:17. Bell finds evidence in these parts of the letter that Paul believed that the church, consisting of Gentile and Jewish believers, replaced Israel as God’s people. In a study of law and covenant in Pauline theology, Jason C. Meyer 52 23 D.O. Sumner, “Karl Barth and ‘The Fullness of Time’: Eternity and Divine Intent in the Epistle to the Galatians”, in: M.W. Elliott, S.J. Hafemann, N.T. Wright and J. Frederick (eds.), Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 249–257. (2009) contends that Paul regarded the Mosaic covenant as essentially non-eschatological, differing from the (eschatologically) new covenant. In Galatians 3–4, Paul highlights the fact that the Mosaic covenant was wrongly understood as still having a soteriological function after it was divinely terminated. Scott W. Hahn 53 24 D. Herskowitz, “Authenticity, Repentance and the Second Coming: ‘The Moment’ in Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Rabbi Soloveitchik”, Journal of Scriptural Reasoning 16:1 (2017), pp. 1–5. (2009) investigates the covenant in Scripture from a canonical perspective. With regard to Galatians 3 and 4, Hahn states: “Paul argues for the priority and primacy of the Abrahamic covenant — rather than the Mosaic — as the foundational covenant with Israel and ultimately with all mankind. … In contrast to the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant — at least as renewed after the golden calf and other rebellions — is secondary and subordinate in Paul’s eyes.” 54 25 S.J. Chester, “‘Abba! Father!’ (Galatians 4:6): Justification and Assurance in Martin Luther’s Lectures on Galatians (1535)”, Biblical Research 63 (2018), pp. 15–28. For a response to Chester’s contribution, see: P.J. Leithart, “Response: Galatians Five Hundred Years Later”, Biblical Research 63 (2018), pp. 63–71. According to Donald Cobb 55 26 T.A. Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy and Paul’s Portrayal of the Crisis in Galatians”, New Testament Studies 50:4 (2004), pp. 550–571. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688504000311 (2015), in Galatians 3 and 4, Paul does not react against the teaching of his opponents by merely opposing law and grace or law and faith as is often claimed. He rather reacts to an argument about the covenant by means of an argument about a different covenant. Miguel G. Echevarria Jr. 56 27 S.K. Tonstad, “Inscribing Abraham: Apocalyptic, the Akedah, and ‘Abba! Father’ in Galatians ”, in: H.C. Kim (ed.), Galatians as Examined by Diverse Academics in 2012 (St. Andrews, Scotland) (Hermit Kingdom Studies in Christianity and Judaism 3, Newark NJ/Seoul: The Hermit Kingdom Press, 2013), pp. 15-28. (2019) discusses the notion of inheritance in Paul’s letters. In the case of Galatians, Echevarria argues that Paul uses the term “promise” to refer to the land promised to Abraham and his offspring, but understands it as referring eschatologically to the entire world that still is to come and that his views in this regard thus differ from later Jewish views on the matter.

5.7 Law

Joel Marcus 57 28 M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Printing House, 2005). Updated version: M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Library of New Testament (2001) is of the opinion that the expression “under the law” (vv. 4 and 5) was first used by Paul’s opponents and that he adapted it and used it against them. In-Gyu Hong 58

Argumentation in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9:2 (2007), pp. 99–120. Studies 344, London: T & T Clark, 2007). See also: M. Hietanen, “The https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52342

(2002) interprets the expression “under the law” in (vv. 4 and 5) as indicative of the enslaving power of the law causing a lack of freedom and an inability to determine one’s own life. Peter von der Osten-Sacken 59 29 See the 2007 version, p. 143. (2014) draws attention to the implications of v. 4 for Paul’s view of the law. Von der Osten-Sacken summarises this perspective as a depiction of the law in the field of tension (“Spannungsfeld”) between eschatology and history. Through Christ, the era of the law has come to an end. This implies on the one hand, that believers were liberated from law that condemned them but on the other hand, that the law also protects them against enthusiasm, making it possible for them to live in this world. Todd A. Wilson 60 30 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 (2005) is of the opinion that Paul used the expression “under the law” (vv. 4–5) as a rhetorical abbreviation for “under the curse of the law”. This implies that cursing plays a much more prominent role in Galatians than is generally recognised. In a study of the expression “under the law” (used in vv. 4–5) in the Pauline epistles, James D.G. Dunn 61 31 M. Rastoin, “Framing Freedom: Galatians 4:1–7 and Pauline Rhetoric”, Revue Biblique 121:2 (2014), pp. 252–266. (2013) points out that most of Paul’s fellow Jews might have regarded it a good position to find themselves in, but that Paul had a different view. For him, it was similar to being “under the elements of the world” from which humankind had to be liberated in order to be “under grace” and be led by the Spirit.

5.8 Soteriology

Beatriz Augusta de Campos Sampaio 62 32 A. Asumang, “The Role of the Doctrine of Trinitarian Worship in Paul’s Dispute with the Judaizers: Galatians 4:6 and Philippians 3:3 as Test Cases”, Conspectus 14 (2012), pp. 1–55. (2004) discusses the theme of inheritance in the Old Testament and Graeco-Roman law as background for the interpretation of the concept “heir” in this passage and in Romans 8:17. De Campos Sampaio emphasises the importance of the notion “the fullness of time” and the trinitarian perspective in order to grasp Paul’s use of the concept. Trevor J. Burke 63 33 S.R. Swain, “‘Heirs through God’: Galatians 4:4–7 and the Doctrine of the Trinity”, in: M.W. Elliott, S.J. Hafemann, N.T. Wright and J. Frederick (eds.), Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 258–268. (2008) argues that Paul’s adoption metaphor (used in this passage and in Romans 8) is best understood against the context of the ancient Roman familia, thus depicting salvation as an action by the Divine Family. The Father (paterfamilias) initiates salvation, it happens through Jesus, God’s Son, and the Spirit carries out the process of resocialisation. Jason Maston (2012) 64 34 Op. cit., p. 265. disagrees with scholars who are of the opinion that Paul’s apocalyptic theology in Galatians implies the absence of salvation history. Maston detects a notion of salvation history underlying 3:15–4:7, according to which the period of the law is portrayed as a period of “Unheil”. John W. Taylor 65 35 A. Labahn and M. Labahn, “Jesus als Sohn Gottes bei Paulus: Eine soteriologische Grundkonstante der paulinischen Christologie”, in: U. Schnelle, T. Söding and M. Labahn (eds.), Paulinische Christologie: Exegetische Beiträge: Hans Hübner zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), pp. 97–120. (2012) is of the opinion that scholars tend to interpret the relationship between Gentiles and Jews in Galatians in a wrong way. According to vv. 4–7 (as well as 3:13–14 and 25–26), a mutual independence exists. Gentiles receive the blessing of Abraham, since Jesus liberated the Jews from the curse of the law and Jewish believers receive the Spirit, since Gentiles received the blessings and became children of God. According to Peter J. Leithart 66 36 K. Scholtissek, “‘Geboren aus einer Frau, geboren unter das Gesetz’ (Gal 4,4): Die christologisch-soteriologische Bedeutung des irdischen Jesus bei Paulus”, in: U. Schnelle, T. Söding and M. Labahn (eds.), Paulinische Christologie: Exegetische Beiträge: Hans Hübner zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), pp. 194–219. (2016), God reconfigures the fallen situation in which humankind finds itself (under “the elements of the world”) so that a new community is formed, operating in a different way. God does this by imparting to them a new nature. Leithart also works out the implication of this idea for missiology.

5.9 Ecclesiology

In a study of Paul’s letters as letters of worship, John Paul Heil 67 37 T. Wong, “‘God Sent Forth His Own Son’: A Study of Paul’s Christology of the Cross in Galatians 4:4 and Romans 8:3”, Sino-Christian Studies 4 (2007), pp. 167–189. (2011) highlights the following aspects of ritual worship in the letter: worship in the letter opening (1:1–5), the link between the eucharist and worship in the Antioch incident (2:11–21), the effect of baptism on ethical worship (3:26–29, worked out in 4:1–11 and 5:16–6:10) and worship in the letter closing (6:11–18).

5.10 Christian existence/Spirituality

One of the issues that Grant Macaskill 68 38 R.T. George, “‘God Sent His Son, Born of a Woman’ (Gal 4:4): The Idea of Incarnation, Its Antecedents, and Significance in Paul’s Theology”, Doon Theological Journal 51:1 (2008), pp. 65–85. (2013) investigates in Galatians in a study of the notion of union with Christ is adoption (v. 5). In this instance, Macaskill highlights the fact that Paul specifically links adoption to receiving the Spirit. Furthermore, the importance of God’s fatherhood in this context is stressed, as well as the fact that Jesus’ sonship and his movement from a position of minority (under the law) to majority serve as the basis of adoption in the sacraments. In a study of vv. 4–7 and Romans 8:14–17, Florin Bejenaru 69 39 W. Gonzaga, “‘Nascido de Mulher’ (Gl 4,4)”, Horizonte 17:53 (2019), pp. 1194–1216. https://doi.org/10.5752/P.2175-5841.2019v17n53p1194 (2014) focuses on the role of the Spirit in experiencing the divine childhood of God. The Spirit creates the awareness of childhood of God in believers and proclaims it through the intense prayer “Abba! Father!” coming from both them and the Spirit. Hanna Górska 70 40 D. del Gaudio, “La Cristologia di Gal 4,4 e la Concretezza Storica Dell’incarnazione del Verbo in Prospettiva Redentiva”, Miscellanea Francescana 120:3/4 (2020), pp. 311–335. (2019) discusses the relationship between adoption as children of God and spiritual liberty according to this pericope and Romans 8:12–17. Believers do not merely receive spiritual liberty but also a new relationship with God. They have to accept this gift but also have to follow the guidance of the Spirit in order to avoid losing their spiritual liberty.

5.11 Eschatology

Michel Gourgues 71 41 P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: J. Eckert, M. Schmidl and H. Steichele (eds.), Pneuma und Gemeinde: Christsein in der Tradition des Paulus und Johannes: Festschrift für Josef Hainz zum 65. Geburtstag (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2001), pp. 15–32. Also available in: P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: B. Kowalski, R. Höffner and J. Verheyden (eds.), Studien zu Einleitungsfragen und zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Gesammelte Aufsätze von Peter Dschulnigg (Biblical Tools and Studies 9, Leuven/Paris/Walpole MA: Peeters, 2010), pp. 355–370. (2001) focuses on the notion of the fullness/fulfilment of time in three traditions: Mark 1:15, Galatians 4:4 and Ephesians 1:10. Gourgues shows that the expression has a specific connotation in each context and that it refers to different events. According to Mark, time reached a peak because of the advent of the Kingdom of God. According to Galatians, time “switched” from the time of the law to the time of faith, and in Ephesians, the concept is linked to the eschatological recapitulation of all things. Hubert Ordon 72 42 R.J. Kagarise, Paul’s Charismatic Imperatives (Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 43, Dorset: Deo Publishing, 2014), pp. 123–125. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004397194 (2001) is of the opinion that v. 4 is the literary and theological centre of this passage. It focuses on the soteriological turning point of personal and world history, with Christ’s incarnation as an event bringing time to its full measure. Paul’s “fullness of time” thus also becomes the “middle of time”, summum temporis. Marinko Vidović 73 43 J.R. Coulson, “Jesus and the Spirit in Paul’s Theology: The Earthly Jesus”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 79:1 (2017), pp. 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1353/cbq.2017.0004 (2005) highlights the fact that the incursion of the eschaton into history was normally linked in Paul’s time to Jesus’ death but that Paul linked it in v. 4 to Jesus’ birth. With Jesus’ birth (in which Mary also had her role to play), the end of history was thus already anticipated although history paradoxically still continued – a situation enabling believers to live optimistically, experiencing the new creation brought about by God. In a study of Paul’s references to the kingdom, Réne A. López 74 44 C. Forbes, “Paul’s Principalities and Powers: Demythologizing Apocalyptic?”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 23:82 (2001), pp. 61–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X0102308203 See also the follow-up article in which Forbes argues that Paul’s views on principalities and powers are best understood as a combination of insights from his Jewish heritage and a Graeco-Roman world view: C. Forbes, “Pauline Demonology and/or Cosmology? Principalities, Powers and the Elements of the World in Their Hellenistic Context”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24:3 (2002), pp. 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X0202400303 (2011) also looks at the term “inheritance”, raising the question of whether the term only refers to the future or also to a present reality. In the case of vv. 1 and 7 (as well as 3:18 and 29 and 4:30), López is of the opinion that “inheritance” refers to the world to come. D. Francois Tolmie 75 45 M.C. de Boer, “Cross and Cosmos in Galatians”, in: D.J. Downs and M.L. Skinner (eds.), The Unrelenting God: God’s Action in Scripture: Essays in Honor of Beverly Roberts Gaventa (Grand Rapids MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2013), pp. 207–225. (2011) notes that all three eras normally distinguished in the New Testament (the era before the coming of Christ, Christ’s coming and the end of time) are reflected in Galatians and that Christ’s coming receives the most attention. However, this thus does not mean that the future is unimportant to Paul, since the nature of the “fulness of time” (4:4) theologically implies that something still has to happen in the future, making believers long for the future and live in hope of what is still to come. Todd D. Still 76 46 R.E. Moses, Practices of Power: Revisiting the Principalities and the Powers in the Pauline Letters (Emerging Scholars, Minneapolis MN: Fortress Press, 2014), pp. 119–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt22nm7p1 (2014) combines a narratival and an apocalyptic reading of Galatians by means of Greimas’s narratival model. Still distinguishes between three sequences: the initial sequence (before faith came), the topical sequence (the time of the gospel, Paul’s time in and away from Galatia and his encouraging of the Galatians to recall what happened earlier in their spiritual lives) and the final sequence (time beyond time). Douglas Harink 77 47 K.S. Kim, “Reconstructing Paul’s Physics – Paul’s Cosmic Dualism and τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου”, 신약연구 15:3 (2016), pp. 524–563. (2017) develops Louis Martyn’s apocalyptic perspective on Paul further by highlighting trinitarian and Christological aspects in vv. 1–11. Harink identifies two aspects of apocalyptic discontinuity: the difference between divine being and creaturehood and the Messianic liberation of a spiritually enslaved world by Christ. Harink further argues that for Paul, apocalyptic was essentially a peaceful union of divine and human realities in the incarnation of Christ. According to Scott J. Hafemann 78 48 E. Wasserman, Apocalypse as Holy War: Divine Politics and Polemics in the Letters of Paul (Anchor Bible Reference Library, New Haven CT/London: Yale University Press, 2018), pp. 151–155. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300235630 (2019), from Galatians 3 and 4, it is clear that Paul thought that the eschatological restoration had dawned in Christ, thus ending the era of the Sinai covenant. However, the two covenants (of the flesh and of the Spirit respectively) would continue until the present evil age came to an end. Chapter 12: Galatians 4:8–11 A variety of issues attracted the attention of scholars in this brief pericope.

1. Background

H. Ross Cole 1 49 A. Aranda, “Imagen de Dios en Cristo – Hijos de Dios en Cristo: Una Relectura de la Doctrina Antropológica Paulina”, Scripta Theologica 38:2 (2006), pp. 599–615. (2001) disagrees with Troy Martin 2 50 A. García Marqués, “τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου: Humanismo Romano y Religión Cristiana”, Revista Española de Teología 77:3 (2017), pp. 319‑348. who proposed that v. 10 refers to the observance of Gentile religious practices. Cole opts for the traditional view, namely that Paul refers to the Jewish calendar. Johannes Woyke 3 51 R.H. Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.184, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 160–180. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157300-2 (2008) draws attention to the description of “the elements of the world” as “weak and impotent” in v. 9 and points out that Philo believed that “the elements of the world” did not possess inherent creative powers – a problem that could be overcome by the law. According to Woyke, Paul denies that the law had such powers and thus regards it as also falling under “the elements of the world”. Justin K. Hardin 4 52 J.C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (NAC Studies in Bible & Theology 6, Nashville TN: Broadman & Holman, 2009), pp. 116–176. (2008) proposes that Galatians should be interpreted against the background of the imperial cult. Hardin believes that vv. 9–10 refer to the imperial cult calendar, which means that the Galatians were participating in the imperial cult at the time that Paul wrote the letter. Rebekah M. Devine 5 53 S.W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises (Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library, New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2009). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvs32tbq (2017) agrees with Hardin that vv. 9–10 refer to the imperial cult calendar but is of the opinion that Paul challenged the Galatians on two fronts (and not one only as Hardin assumes). They were choosing between two kinds of “elements of the world”, namely the observance of the Jewish law and of the imperial cult calendar. Christina Harker 6 54 Op. cit., p. 276. (2018) interprets v. 10 as referring not to the Jewish calendar (as is usually assumed) but to Roman festivals. Harker is also critical of the negative attitude in Pauline scholarship towards subordinated people and the fact that Paul’s reductionist rhetoric (often focusing on binaries) is mostly ignored. According to Harker, this even happens in empire-critical studies.

2. Metaphor and translational issues

Three studies were published on “the elements of the world” (vv. 3 and 9): Martinus C. de Boer 7 55 D. Cobb, “Galates 3–4: Une alliance ni abrogée ni modifiée”, La Revue Réformée 275 (2015), pp. 1–30. (2007) investigates the metaphor in terms of the argumentative context in which Paul uses it, as well as the cultural-historical context of the readers of the letter. De Boer views it as a metonymical reference to beliefs and ritual practices linked in those days to the four elements (earth, air, fire, water). Paul uses it in particular to refer to calendrical observances linked to such practices. After an overview of all the issues that are relevant for this term and the different ways in which it has been interpreted, Dieter T. Roth 8 56 M.G. Echevarria Jr., The Future Inheritance of Land in the Pauline Epistles (Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, 2019), pp. 104–140. (2014) opts for understanding it as referring to a worldly way of existence distinct from Christ. Neil Martin 9 57 J. Marcus, “‘Under the Law’: The Background of a Pauline Expression”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63:1 (2001), pp. 72–83. (2018) disagrees with scholars who are of the opinion that the term refers to physical elements constituting the world. Martin believes that it refers to fundamental characteristics of the pre-Christian existence. Timothy Ashworth 10 58 I.-G. Hong, “Being ‘under the Law’ in Galatians”, Evangelical Review of Theology 26:4 (2002), pp. 354–372. (2010) argues that στοιχέω (5:25 and 6:16) and στοιχεῖα (4:3, 9), usually translated as “walk” and “elemental spirits/principles” respectively, should rather be translated as “keeping aligned with” (in the sense of “keeping aligned in the footsteps of”) and “things that keep aligned behaviour/give directions for behaviour”.

3. Wirkungsgeschichte

Lásló Sándor Chardonnens 11 59 P. von der Osten-Sacken, Der Gott der Hoffnung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Theologie des Paulus (Studien zu Kirche und Israel: Neue Folge 3, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2014), pp. 248–285. (2017) discusses hemerology (i.e., a method of divination) in medieval Europe. Amongst other things, Chardonnens points out that Paul’s criticism of observing days, months, seasons and years (vv. 9–11) was used by Christian exegetes against hemerology that was regarded as a vain human practice.

4. Interpretative approaches

4.1 Rhetorical approaches

Mika Hietanen 12 60 T.A. Wilson, “‘Under Law’ in Galatians: A Pauline Theological Abbreviation”, Journal of Theological Studies 56:2 (2005), pp. 362–392. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/fli108 (2005) offers a pragma-dialectical analysis of Galatians 3:1–5:12 and identifies two arguments in this pericope: that the Galatians were enslaved by “the elements of the world” at an earlier stage and that Paul was afraid that his labour for them may have been in vain. 13 61 J.D.G. Dunn, “‘Under the Law’”, in: J. Krans, B.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, P.-B. Smit and A.W. Zwiep (eds.), Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer (Novum Testamentum In a text-based rhetorical analysis of the letter, D. Francois Tolmie 14

Supplements 149, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2013), pp. 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004250369_005

(2005) summarises Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope as emotionally rebuking the Galatians for turning to religious slavery again. This notion is conveyed primarily by means of a rhetorical question in vv. 8–9. David V. Urban 15 62 B.A. de Campos Sampaio, “La Nozione di ‘kleronomos’ nelle Lettere Paoline ai Romani e ai Galati”, Rivista Biblica 52:1 (2004), pp. 11–39. (2010) discusses the ways in which Paul uses a rhetoric of rebuke to shape the ethos of his readers. This passage is one of four instances of rebuke in the letter that Urban explains by means an Aristotelian analysis and by linking it to Jeremiah (the others are 1:6–7; 3:1–5 and 5:2–12).

4.2 Speech act theory

Pieter Verster 16 63 T.J. Burke, “Adopted as Sons (ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ): The Missing Piece in Pauline Soteriology”, in: S.E. Porter (ed.), Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman (Pauline Studies 5, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2008), pp. 259–287. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004171596.i-370.76 (2007) uses speech act theory to distinguish between various types of non-authentic questions in Galatians. This makes it possible to describe the intended effect of each question more accurately. The one in v. 9 is classified as a “statement negative”.

5. Theological issues

5.1 Cosmology

In a contribution on Paul’s views on principalities and powers, Chris Forbes 17 64 J. Maston, “The Nature of Salvation History in Galatians”, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 2:2 (2012), pp. 89–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/26426549 (2001) refers to Paul’s reference to “the elements of the world” in vv. 3 and 9. According to Forbes, Paul probably regarded the elements as personifiable spiritual forces that some people wrongly treated as gods. Robert Ewusie Moses 18 65 J.W. Taylor, “The Eschatological Interdependence of Jews and Gentiles in Galatians”, Tyndale Bulletin 63:2 (2012), pp. 291–316. https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.29352 (2014) investigates the same issue and is of the opinion that the expression refers to both the four basic elements that people thought the world consisted of and the demonic powers that the Galatians were enslaved by before they became believers. Kyu Seop Kim 19 66 P.J. Leithart, Delivered from the Elements of the World: Atonement, Justification, Mission (Grand Rapids MI: InterVarsity Press, 2016). (2016) believes that Paul uses the term “the elements of the world” in vv. 3 and 9 in terms of a cosmic dualism to refer to physical perishable elements in the world in the old era that still have to be transformed by the Spirit. In a study of Paul’s view on apocalypse as holy war, Emma Wasserman 20 67 J.P. Heil, The Letters of Paul as Rituals of Worship (Eugene OR: Cascade, 2011), pp. 64–74. (2018) has a chapter on Paul’s view of other gods. In the case of Galatians, Wasserman refers to vv. 1–10 and interprets “the elements of the world” in v. 3 as the lesser parts of the world, in particular heavenly bodies, which are then linked to gentile gods in v. 9.

5.2 Anthropology and ethnicity

Philip la G. du Toit 21 68 G. Macaskill, Union with Christ in the New Testament (New York NY/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 221–225. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684298.001.0001 (2020) draws attention to the division between divine and human identity in the New Testament and the way in which scholars try to explain it. Du Toit argues that Paul regarded the believer’s identity primarily as a theological reality and not as an anthropological reality, the emphasis being on the spiritual life and identity that God provides in Christ. One of the examples that Du Toit discusses is 4:9–19, where Paul views religious practices as distracting people from the kingdom of God.

5.3 Soteriology

According to Peter J. Leithart 22 69 F. Bejenaru, Il Gridare “Abba, Padre!”: Spirito Santo e Filiazione Divina, Agire Umano e Proclamazione Liturgica: Studio Esegetico-Teologico di Gal 4,4–7 e Rm 8,14–17 (Studi e Ricerche: Sezione Biblica, Assisi: Cittadella, 2014). (2016), God reconfigures the fallen situation in which humankind finds itself (being under “the elements of the world”) so that a new community is formed, operating in a different way. God does this by imparting to them a new nature. Leithart also works out the implication of this idea for missiology.

5.4 Ecclesiology

In a study of Paul’s letters as letters of worship, John Paul Heil 23 70 H. Górska, “Wolność Synów Bożych na Podstawie Rz 8,12–17 i Ga 4,1–7”, Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 72:3 (2019), pp. 197–209. https://doi.org/10.21906/rbl.3617 (2011) highlights the following aspects of ritual worship in the letter: worship in the letter opening (1:1–5), the link between the eucharist and worship in the Antioch incident (2:11–21), the effect of baptism on ethical worship (3:26–29, worked out in 4:1–11 and 5:16–6:10) and worship in the letter closing (6:11–18).

5.5 Eschatology

According to Scott J. Hafemann 24 71 M. Gourgues, “La ‘plénitude des temps’, ou le temps marqué de façon décisive par la référence à Jésus Christ: Polysémie d’une formule néotestamentaire (Mc 1,15; Ga 4,4; Ep 1,10)”, Science et Esprit 53:1 (2001), pp. 93–110. (2019), from Galatians 3 and 4, it is clear that Paul thought that the eschatological restoration had dawned in Christ, thus ending the era of the Sinai covenant. However, the two covenants (of the flesh and of the Spirit respectively) would continue until the present evil age comes to an end. Chapter 13: Galatians 4:12–20 A variety of issues attracted the interest of scholars in this pericope. There was no specific issue dominating the research on this pericope.

1. Introductory issues

1.1 Background

Eliezer González 1 72 H. Ordon, “‘Kiedy Zaś Nadeszła Pełnia Czasu’ (Ga 4,4)”, Roczniki Teologiczne 48 (2001), pp. 105–119. (2014) believes that the notion of metamorphosis occupies a central place in Paul’s thought. (The term μεταμορφόω [“change”] is used in Romans 12:2 and 2 Corinthians 3:18, μορφή [“form”] in Philippians 2:6–7 and μορφόω [“form”] in Galatians 4:19.) According to González, Paul’s view of metamorphosis would have been understandable in both Hellenistic and Jewish (in particular apocalyptic) contexts but Paul also moves beyond existing views on the matter, in particular by emphasising the universal and cosmological effects of the transformation taking place. According to František Ábel 2 73 M. Vidović, “‘Punina Vremena’ (Gal 4,4) – Iskaz Prisutnosti Eshatona u Povijesti (I)”, Crkva u Svijetu 40:1 (2005), pp. 7–28, and M. Vidović, “‘Punina Vremena’ (Gal 4,4) – Iskaz Prisutnosti Eshatona u Povijesti (II)”, Crkva u Svijetu 40:2 (2005), pp. 143–160. (2019), in vv. 17–18 and 1:14, Paul uses the term “zealous” in the sense that it was used in the Greek milieu, but his idea of what is to be emulated differs from the generally accepted view due to what was revealed to him by God. Laura Salah Nasrallah 3 74 R.A. López, “A Study of Pauline Passages on Inheriting the Kingdom”, Bibliotheca Sacra 168:672 (2011), pp. 443–459. (2019) draws attention to an issue that is often overlooked when missionary (and other) journeys in the New Testament times are considered, namely that such journeys could have been disruptive to the people who had to receive the visitors. Nasrallah discusses a transport requisition inscription from Sagallasos (dated 14–19 CE) that helps one to understand such matters better. In the case of Galatians, Paul’s visits to the recipients (mentioned in vv. 13–14) might have imposed on and disturbed the locals.

2. Text-critical, linguistic and stylistic issues

2.1 Text-critical issues

Hans Förster 4 75 D.F. Tolmie, “Living in Hope ‘in the Fullness of Time’: The Eschatology of Galatians”, in: J.G. van der Watt (ed.), Eschatology of the New Testament and Some Related Documents (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.315, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), pp. 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151814-0 (2009) discusses a papyrus fragment (P.Vindob. K. 7698) containing a Sahidic text of Galatians 4:20c–24a and 25c–28, written in the seventh or eighth century. Förster points out that it helps one to understand the approach followed in the translation of the text. It was regarded as more important to keep to the meaning of the text than to translate the Greek words exactly.

2.2 Linguistic issues

One of the points of criticism that Richard N. Longenecker 5 76 T.D. Still, “‘In the Fullness of Time’ (Gal. 4:4): Chronology and Theology in Galatians ”, in: M.W. Elliott, S.J. Hafemann, N.T. Wright and J. Frederick (eds.), Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 239–248. (2009) raises against Betz’s commentary (apart from a general positive evaluation of Betz’s contribution) is that he ignored the change in mood occurring at v. 12. David I. Yoon 6 77 D. Harink, “J.L. Martyn and Apocalyptic Discontinuity: The Trinitarian, Christological Ground of Galatians in Galatians 4:1–11”, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 7:1/2 (2017), pp. 101–111. https://doi.org/10.5325/jstudpaullett.7.1-2.0101 (2014) applies systemic functional linguistics to this pericope, showing how it helps one to determine textual meaning. According to Donald Cobb 7 78 S.J. Hafemann, Paul: Servant of the New Covenant: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.435, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), pp. 52–89. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157702-4 Updated version of: S.J. Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile of Israel in Galatians 3–4”, in: J.M. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 56, Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 329‑371. (2016), ἐκκλείω (“exclude”) in v. 17 should be interpreted as meaning “exclude” or “shut out”. This must be understood in terms of Jewish ideas in those times about people being excluded from God’s covenant and people. Joohan Kim 8 1 H.R. Cole, “The Christian and Time-Keeping in Colossians 2:16 and Galatians 4:10”, Andrews University Seminary Studies 39:2 (2001), pp. 273–282. (2020) proposes a different understanding of the two “as” phrases in v. 14 (“you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus”). In order to make sense of them, the verb “received” should be repeated: “you received me as an angel of God, as you received Christ Jesus”.

2.3 Stylistic issues

Paul A. Holloway 9 2 T.W. Martin, “Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-Keeping Schemes in Gal 4.10 and Col 2.16”, New Testament Studies 42:1 (1996), pp. 105–119. (2001) identifies v. 16 (“Have I become your enemy by telling you the truth”) as one of three examples of enthymeme in Galatians. This is explained in terms of the way in which enthymeme functioned in the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods. Jacob Cherian 10 3 J. Woyke, “Nochmals zu den ‘schwachen und unfähigen Elementen’ (Gal 4.9): Paulus, Philo und die στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου”, New Testament Studies 54:2 (2008), pp. 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868850800012X (2001) stresses the significance of the parental imagery that Paul uses in his letters, as happens in 1 Thessalonians 2:1–12 and Galatians 4:19–20. Paul’s use of this imagery shows that he is often misunderstood as opposing the participation of women in public worship. In a study of relationship metaphors in Paul’s letters, Christine Gerber 11 4 J.K. Hardin, Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the First-Century Social Context of Paul’s Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.237, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151580-4 (2005) draws attention to the unusual and multi-sense metaphor of childbirth that he uses in v. 19: Paul, a Jewish man, gave birth to Gentile men and women in the form of Christ for the family of God. The metaphor thus emphasises inclusivity – an important theme in the letter. Beverly Roberts Gaventa 12 5 R.M. Devine, “No Gods Made with Hands: Pauline Idol Polemics”, in: D. Batovici and K. de Troyer (eds.), Authoritative Texts and Reception History: Aspects and Approaches (Biblical Interpretation Series 151, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2017), pp. 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004334960_006 (2007) draws attention to Paul’s maternity as reflected in 4:19, arguing that this verse should not be regarded merely as an appeal supported by the friendship between Paul and the Galatians. It is rather a theological claim “that Paul’s work as an apostle occurs within an apocalyptic framework that is created by God’s revelation of Jesus Christ and that looks forward to the full incorporation of all believers – indeed, of the cosmos itself – into Christ”. 13 6 C. Harker, The Colonizers’ Idols: Paul, Galatia, and Empire in New Testament Studies (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.460, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-155904-4 Susan G. Eastman 14 7 M.C. de Boer, “The Meaning of the Phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in Galatians”, New Testament Studies 53:2 (2007), pp. 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868850 7000124 (2007) also discusses the maternal images that Paul uses in this pericope – described as Paul’s “mother tongue” (a term coined by Ursula le Guin) demonstrating the “staying power” of the gospel. According to Eastman, one only hears Paul fully if one also listens to his “mother tongue”: “… to the intensely relational inflections of his voice, the language of his maternal ‘labor’ with his converts. Paul uses the intimate imagery of family life to draw his converts back into the thread of conversation that mediates their life together”. 15 8 D.T. Roth, “What ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ Are the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου?”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 70:1 (2014), pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v70i1.2676 Craig S. Keener (2008) 16 9 N. Martin, “Returning to the stoicheia tou kosmou: Enslavement to the Physical Elements in Galatians 4.3 and 9?”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40:4 (2018), pp. 434–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x18769794 disagrees with scholars who interpret v. 15 as indicating that Paul suffered with eye problems. Evidence from antiquity shows that Paul was merely using a figure of speech that the Galatians would have understood well. Karl Matthias Schmidt 17 10 T. Ashworth, “Spirit-Led Freedom: Examining a Significant Detail in Galatians”, Scripture Bulletin (Online) 40:2 (2010), pp. 75–87. (2011) draws attention to the fact that the image of birth pains that Paul uses in v. 19 occurs again in 4:27 where he refers to the heavenly Jerusalem. Schmidt interprets this as follows: By repeating the birth metaphor from v. 19 in 4:21–31, this pericope is linked (via v. 19) to 1:13–2:14. In 1:13–2:14, Paul associates himself with Arabia and his opponents with Jerusalem, but in 4:21–31, this situation is changed as he now associates himself with the heavenly Jerusalem and his opponents with the earthly Jerusalem that is now linked to Arabia.

3. Wirkungsgeschichte

Martin Mayerhofer 18 11 L.S. Chardonnens, “Hemerology in Medieval Europe”, in: D. Harper and M. Kalinowski (eds.), Books of Fate and Popular Culture in Early China: The Daybook Manuscripts of the Warring States, Qin and Han (Handbook of Oriental Studies: Section 4: China 33, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2017), pp. 373–407. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004349315_012 (2020) traces the way in which four Pauline passages referring to his spiritual fatherhood were connected in Patristic and Medieval Pauline commentaries to the priesthood. One of these is v. 19. In this instance, Mayerhofer draws attention to an anonymous commentary from the ninth century that follows Jerome and Augustine in emphasising the necessity of love for Christ to take shape in someone (like Augustine) and the fact that Paul does not only speak like a father but also like a mother (like Jerome).

4. Interpretative approaches

4.1 Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures

In a contribution on Paul’s use of Second Isaiah in Galatians, Martinus C. de Boer 19 12 M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Printing House, 2005). Updated version: M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Library of New Testament Studies 344, London: T & T Clark, 2007). See also: M. Hietanen, “The Argumentation in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9:2 (2007), pp. 99–120. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52342 (2002) argues that there are clear indications that Paul knew Second Isaiah and that he used insights from it to formulate his own apocalyptic eschatology. De Boer discusses 1:15–16, 4:19, 21–5:1 and 6:15.

4.2 Rhetorical approaches

Roh-Sik Park 20 13 See the 2007 version, p. 147. (2003) disagrees with scholars who regard this pericope as erratic. According to Park, Paul refers to his sufferings in a forceful manner in this pericope in order to bring the Galatians back to the truth. L. Michael White 21 14 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 142–145. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 (2003) focuses on a different issue: Betz is correct in identifying the friendship topos in this passage but is wrong in regarding it as a mere emotional outburst; rather, it contains one of Paul’s principal charges: that the Galatians did not adhere to the values of friendship. Mika Hietanen 22 15 D.V. Urban, “The Rhetoric of Rebuke and Community-Shaping in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: An Aristotelian Analysis, with Jeremiah as an Alternative Interpretive Rubric”, Scandinavian Evangelical E-Journal for New Testament Studies 1 (2010), pp. 28–42. (2005) offers a pragma-dialectical analysis of Galatians 3:1–5:12 and identifies the underlying argument in this pericope as that Paul had told the Galatians the truth. 23 16 P. Verster, “The Implications of Non-Authentic Questions in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9 (2007), pp. 142–161. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52344 In a text-based rhetorical analysis of the letter, D. Francois Tolmie 24 17 C. Forbes, “Paul’s Principalities and Powers: Demythologizing Apocalyptic?”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 23:82 (2001), pp. 61–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X0102308203 See also the follow-up article in which Forbes argues that Paul’s views on principalities and powers are best understood as a combination of insights from Paul’s Jewish heritage and a Graeco-Roman world view: C. Forbes, “Pauline Demonology and/or Cosmology? Principalities, Powers and the Elements of the World in Their Hellenistic Context”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24:3 (2002), pp. 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X0202400303 (2005) summarises Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope as rebuking the Galatians. Four emotional arguments are identified: pleading, rebuke, vilification and finally the expression of affection and concern for them. In another contribution, Tolmie 25 18 R.E. Moses, Practices of Power: Revisiting the Principalities and the Powers in the Pauline Letters (Emerging Scholars, Minneapolis MN: Fortress Press, 2014), pp. 119–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt22nm7p1 (2011) highlights the rhetorical function of angels in Paul’s arguments in his main letters. In the case of v. 14, the reference to an angel from God is used to create a hyperbolic portrayal of the recipients’ former positive attitude towards Paul. This hyperbole serves as the basis for the rebuke in the next verse. Dieter Mitternacht 26 19 K.S. Kim, “Reconstructing Paul’s Physics – Paul’s Cosmic Dualism and τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου”, 신약연구 15:3 (2016), pp. 524–563. (2013) explains Paul’s rhetorical skill in the opening of the letter (identified as 1:1–10), in particular, by drawing attention to the way in which this serves to help set the stage for the important request in 4:12. 1:13–4:11 shows the plausibility of the request and 4:13–6:10 highlights the benefits or harm to follow depending on the way in which the Galatians responded to the request. Andrie B. du Toit 27 20 E. Wasserman, Apocalypse as Holy War: Divine Politics and Polemics in the Letters of Paul (Anchor Bible Reference Library, New Haven CT/London: Yale University Press, 2018), pp. 151–155. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300235630 (2014) views Galatians from the perspective of the rhetorical model of Hermogenes. Paul uses severe language to bring his readers to their senses. This pericope then also makes sense, since it fits Hermogones’ category of “indignation”.

4.3 Recipient-orientated approaches

Bernhard Oestreich 28 21 P. la G. du Toit, “Ethnic Reasoning and Early Christian Identity: A Pauline Theological Perspective”, HTS: Theological Studies 76:1 (2020), pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i1.5800 (2012) illustrates the use of performance criticism for interpreting the Pauline letters – an approach taking seriously the fact that the letters were read aloud to the recipients in his congregations – by discussing examples from several Pauline letters. In the case of this pericope, Oestreich draws attention to the ways in which Paul disrupted the illusion of his presence, thus preparing the recipients to decide as to how they should receive his message.

4.4 Feminist approaches

Angela N. Parker 29 22 P.J. Leithart, Delivered from the Elements of the World: Atonement, Justification, Mission (Grand Rapids MI: InterVarsity Press, 2016). (2018) problematises Paul’s portrayal of himself as a birthing mother in v. 19: “[C]ritical engagement with Paul means that contemporary readers must ponder Paul’s characterization of himself as a mother without having the lived experiences of what that somatic experience entails… I argue that Paul does not have the right to use the identities of birthing mothers to argue for his religious identity as a man birthing children for Jesus”. 30 23 J.P. Heil, The Letters of Paul as Rituals of Worship (Eugene OR: Cascade, 2011), pp. 64–74.

4.5 Speech act theory

Pieter Verster 31 24 S.J. Hafemann, Paul: Servant of the New Covenant: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.435, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), pp. 52–89 https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157702-4 Updated version of: S.J. Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile of Israel in Galatians 3–4”, in: J.M. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 56, Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 329‑371. (2007) uses speech act theory to distinguish between various types of non-authentic questions in Galatians. This makes it possible to describe the intended effect of each question more accurately. Verster classifies the two questions in this pericope both as “appeals”.

5. Theological issues

5.1 Paul’s self-understanding

On the basis of this pericope, Scott J. Hafemann 32 1 E. González, “Paul’s Use of Metamorphosis in Its Graeco-Roman and Jewish Contexts”, DavarLogos 13:1 (2014), pp. 57–76. (2000) argues that Paul regarded his suffering not merely as a consequence of his gospel. He viewed it instead as constitutive of his message: “Paul’s suffering was the vehicle through which the saving power of God, climactically revealed in Christ, was being made known in the world. To reject the suffering Paul was therefore to reject Christ.” 33 2 F. Ábel, “ζῆλος According to Paul: The Concept of ζῆλος in Galatians in the Context of Paul’s Divine Vocation”, in: F. Ábel (ed.), The Message of Paul the Apostle within Second Temple Judaism (Lanham MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2019), pp. 195–220.

5.2 Gospel

Paulus Toni Tantiono 34 3 L.S. Nasrallah, Archaeology and the Letters of Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199699674. 001.0001 (2008) investigates the theme “telling the truth in Christ” in this pericope and in Ephesians 4:12–16. Tantiono points out that the best way to tell the truth is to tell it in the love coming from the Holy Spirit. Tantiono also notes that the notion of truth in Ephesians is wider than that in Galatians but that there are similarities in Christological and pneumatological aspects between the two letters.

5.3 God

Atsuhiro Asano 35 4 H. Förster, “Ein Papyrusfragment mit sahidischem Text aus dem Galaterbrief (Gal 4,20c–24a. 25c–28): Edition von P.Vindob. K. 7598”, in: R. Pillinger (ed.), Mitteilungen zur Christlichen Archäologie 15 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009), pp. 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1553/micha15s77 (2015) summarises the portrayal of God in v. 19 as “the writhing God”. In this verse Paul depicts himself as imitating God’s motherly anguish about Israel’s unfaithfulness. In this way, the notion is conveyed that God cares for his people like a mother cares for her children.

5.4 Christology

According to Susan R. Garrett 36 5 R.N. Longenecker, “Hans Dieter Betz’s Galatians Commentary: A Retrospective Word of Commendation, with Some Criticisms, Thirty Years after the Commentary’s Publication”, Biblical Research 54 (2009), pp. 11–23. (2008), v. 14 is not a mere hypothetical or metaphorical assertion. In this verse, Paul refers to Christ as God’s chief angel. Bart Ehrman 37 6 D.I. Yoon, “Discourse Analysis and the Textual Metafunction: Analyzing the Texture of Galatians 4,12–20”, Filología Neotestamentaria 27:47 (2014), pp. 83–109. (2014) agrees with Garrett. For Paul, Christ was an angel. T. Jude Nirmal Doss 38 7 D. Cobb, “ἐκκλείω en Galates 4,17: Exclure de l’alliance?”, Revue Biblique 123:4 (2016), pp. 567–585. https://doi.org/10.2143/RBI.123.4.3180795 For a response to Cobb’s views, see J. Lambrecht, In Search of Meaning: Collected Notes on the New Testament (2014–2017) (Balti: Scholars’ Press, 2017), pp. 462–467. (2019) notes that scholars differ in describing Paul’s Christology and suggests that this is due to the fact that his Christology was experiential rather than systematic. Nirmal Doss then adds another option on the basis of v. 19: a transformative Christology in which the notion of Christ being formed in believers plays a central role.

5.5 Anthropology and ethnicity

Philip la G. du Toit 39 8 J. Kim, “A New Understanding of ὡς ἄγγελον Θεοῦ … ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν at Galatians 4:14”, 개혁논총 54 (2020), pp. 291–303. (2020) draws attention to the division between divine and human identity in the New Testament and the way in which scholars try to explain it. Du Toit argues that Paul regarded the believer’s identity primarily as a theological reality and not as an anthropological reality, the emphasis being on the spiritual life and identity that God provides in Christ. One of the examples that Du Toit discusses is 4:9–19, where Paul views religious practices as distracting people from the kingdom of God.

5.6 Church

Michael F. Bird and John Anthony Dunne 40 9 P.A. Holloway, “The Enthymeme as an Element of Style in Paul”, Journal of Biblical Literature 120:2 (2001), pp. 339–343. https://doi.org/10.2307/3268298 (2017) describe Paul’s ministry in Galatians as “pastoring with a big stick” and draw attention to two important issues that can help one to understand his ministry in this letter better: his role as heresiologist and his maternal attitude toward the readers (4:12ff.)

5.7 Ethics

Benjamin J. Lappenga 41 10 J. Cherian, “Paul: A Mother to His Churches: A Brief Examination of Parental Imagery in 1 Thess. 2:1–12 and Gal. 4:19–20”, Dharma Deepika 5:1 (2001), pp. 35–47. (2012) explains the way in which Paul redefines “the good” in this pericope: “[I]n place of the ‘good’ object of ζῆλος [“zeal”] sought by Paul’s opponents, namely, fame and the power to exclude (4:17), Paul substitutes paradoxical, cruciform weakness as the definition of ‘the good’ for zealous Christ-followers.” 42 11 C. Gerber, Paulus und seine “Kinder”: Studien zur Beziehungsmetaphorik der paulinischen Briefe (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 136, Berlin/New York NY: De Gruyter, 2005), pp. 437–495. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892963 Céline Rohmer 43 12 B.R. Gaventa, Our Mother Saint Paul (Louisville KY/London: Westminster John Knox, 2007), pp. 29–39. Earlier versions: B.R. Gaventa, “Our Mother St Paul: Toward the Recovery of a Neglected Theme”, in: A.-J. Levine and M. Blickenstaff (eds.), A Feminist Companion to Paul (Cleveland OH: Pilgrim Press, 2004), pp. 85–97, and B.R. Gaventa, “Our Mother St Paul: Toward the Recovery of a Neglected Theme”, The Princeton Seminary Bulletin 17:1 (1996), pp. 29–44. (2020) highlights the aesthetic dimension of Galatians, arguing that in the three instances in the letter where Paul refers to “the good”, a Pauline aesthetics also becomes visible. Paul not only views the truth of the gospel as an event of liberation, but also points out the beauty of the divine transformation at work. In this pericope, he describes beauty as a creative gesture of God. In 5:1–13, he focuses on the usefulness of beauty for a free existence and in 6:1–10, he stresses that the good depends on beauty.

5.8 Spirituality

Eliezer González 44 13 Op. cit., p. 37. (2014) believes that the notion of metamorphosis occupies a central place in Paul’s thought. (The term μεταμορφόω [“change”] is used in Romans 12:2 and 2 Corinthians 3:18, μορφή [“form”] in Philippians 2:6–7 and μορφόω [“form”] in Galatians 4:19.) González summarises Paul’s view on the matter as follows: “[T]he agent of metamorphosis is God, and the object for the transformation of humanity is Christ-likeness.” 45 14 S.G. Eastman, Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue: Language and Theology in Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans, 2007). Chapter 14: Galatians 4:21–31/5:1 Scholars were interested in a variety of issues in this pericope, 1 15 Op. cit., pp. 181–183. but the issue that attracted the most interest was the way in which Paul used the Hebrew Scriptures.

1. Introductory issues

1.1 Authorship

J.C. O’Neill 2 16 C.S. Keener, “Three Notes on Figurative Language: Inverted Guilt in Acts 7.55-60, Paul’s Figurative Vote in Acts 26.10, Figurative Eyes in Galatians 4.15”, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 5 (2008), pp. 47–49. (2000) divides this pericope into four “oracles”, arguing that they do not show any signs of having been written by Paul. O’Neill believes that they were probably of Essene origin and were added to the letter at a later stage.

1.2 Historical issues underlying Galatians

Axel Graupner 3 17 K.M. Schmidt, “Die Wehen des Völkerapostels: Gal 4,19 und die topographische Verankerung des Heidenapostolats innerhalb von Gal 1,13–2,14 und Gal 4,21–31”, Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 36 (2011), pp. 111–156. (2016) offers four reasons why Paul’s localisation of Sinai in Arabia (v. 25) is correct. Graupner also agrees with Hartmut Gese that Paul (who had visited Arabia) might have known an old Jewish tradition linking Sinai to the city of Egra.

1.3 Background

Anne Davis 4 18 M. Mayerhofer, “The Spiritual Fatherhood of the Priest in Patristic and Medieval Pauline Commentaries”, Logos 23:2 (2020), pp. 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1353/log.2020.0014 (2004) thinks that Paul uses neither narrative allegory nor typology in this pericope. He rather utilises an ancient way of argumentation whereby literary devices were used to draw attention to key concepts in the Hebrew Scriptures. Steven di Matthei 5 19 M.C. de Boer, “Second Isaiah and Paul’s Eschatology in the Letter to the Galatians”, in: F. Postma, K. Spronk and E. Talstra (eds.), The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy: Festschrift for Henk Leene (Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese van de Bijbel en zijn Tradisies Supplement Series 3, Maastricht: Shaker Publishing, 2002), pp. 35–43. (2006) is of the opinion that Paul’s interpretative strategy in this pericope is best understood in terms of Jewish reading strategies seeking to eschatologise the Law. Birgit van der Lans 6 20 R.-S. Park, “The Rhetorical Nature of Gal. 4:12–20”, 신약논단 10:1 (2003), pp. 117–137. (2010) elucidates Paul’s argument on Abraham in Galatians 3 and 4 by means of Jewish texts in which Abraham was regarded as either the father of many nations or the father of the Jews. George H. van Kooten 7 21 L.M. White, “Rhetoric and Reality in Galatians: Framing the Social Demands of Friendship”, in: J.T. Fitzgerald, T. Olbricht and L.M. White (eds.), Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Novum Testamentum Supplements 110, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2003), pp. 307–349. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047402190_018 (2010) draws attention to two issues in this pericope – Paul’s criticism of ethnic descent and the notion of dual citizenship (Hagar vs. Sarah) – and similar strategies of argumentation in Graeco-Roman philosophy, in particular the way in which Stoics tried to depoliticise politics. J.C. de Vos 8 22 M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Printing House, 2005). Updated version: M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Library of New Testament Studies 344, London: T & T Clark, 2007). See also: M. Hietanen, “The Argumentation in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9:2 (2007), pp. 99–120. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52342 (2014) compares this pericope and 2 Baruch 4:1–7, texts that are both trying to make sense of an existence without the earthly Jerusalem and the temple, and points out several differences between them. Michael B. Cover 9 23 See the 2007 version, p. 152. (2014) reads the pericope in the light of Philo’s practice of allegory, as well as similar Jewish traditions reflected in the Letter to the Hebrews. Cover argues that Paul’s allegoresis is similar to what is found in Philo’s Pentateuchal commentaries. In a study of Paul and the Gentile problem, Matthew Thiessen 10 24 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen (2016) argues that Paul’s views in this passage (and on the law in Romans 2) fitted in well with the thinking of some Jews in his time who rejected the idea that Gentiles could become Jews by being circumcised and adopting the law. In this passage, Paul equates Gentiles opting for circumcision with Ishmael and his opponents with Hagar. Bradley Trick 11

Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1

(2016) proposes that Paul’s views of a διαθήκη (“testament” or “covenant”) in Galatians 3–4 are best understood in terms of a Hellenistic testament by which God adopted Abraham, with “children” in 3:7 referring to Jews, “children of promise” in 4:28 referring to Gentiles and “seed” in 3:16 referring to Christ and the union of Gentiles and Jews in Christ in 3:29. Jason M. Zurawski 12 25 D.F. Tolmie, “Angels as Arguments? The Rhetorical Function of References to Angels in the Main Letters of Paul”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 67:1 (2011), pp. 1–3. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v67i1.825 (2017) reads Paul’s interpretation of Sarah and Hagar in light of Philo’s interpretation of the narrative. According to Zurawski, Paul associates the law with Jewish paideia in order to explain the role that it played in the past and to warn his audience against taking it up. Philo, on the other hand, associates Hagar with Greek paideia in order to encourage his readers to take up encyclical studies (although he is aware of its dangers). Jill Hicks-Keeton 13 26 D. Mitternacht, “‘Forceful and Demanding’: On Paul as a Letter Writer”, Theology & Life 36 (2013), pp. 127–142. (2019) compares Paul’s spatial imagery in this pericope (the two Jerusalems) with that of some Hellenistic Jewish writings (Joseph and Aseneth, Tobit and 2 Maccabees) and points out that Paul and these authors all rhetorically reconfigure space, although Paul’s way of doing so differs because he links God’s plan to Jesus.

2. Text-critical, linguistic, stylistic and translation issues

2.1 Text-critical issues

Hans Förster 14 27 A.B. du Toit, “Galatians and the περὶ ἰδεῶν λόγου of Hermogenes: A Rhetoric of Severity in Galatians 5–6”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 70:1 (2014), pp. 1–10, https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v70i1.2739 , and “Galatians and the περὶ ἰδεῶν λόγου of Hermogenes: A Rhetoric of Severity in Galatians 5–6”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 70:1 (2014), pp. 1–5, https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v70i1.2738 (2009) discusses a papyrus fragment (P.Vindob. K. 7698) containing a Sahidic text of vv. 20c–24a and 25c–28, written in the seventh or eighth century CE. Förster points out that it helps one to understand the approach followed in the translation of the text. It was regarded as more important to keep to the meaning of the text than to translate the Greek words exactly. Stephen C. Carlson 15 28 B. Oestreich, Performanzkritik der Paulusbriefe (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.296, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-152280-2 English version: B. Oestreich, Performance Criticism of the Pauline Letters (Biblical Performance Criticism Series 14, Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2016). (2014) discusses the text-critical problems in v. 25. Carlson argues that v. 25a originally read τὸ γὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ (“for Mount Sinai is in Arabia”) and that it was a marginal note and should as such be reflected in critical editions. Christopher M. Tuckett 16 29 A.N. Parker, “One Womanist’s View of Racial Reconciliation in Galatians”, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 34:2 (2018), pp. 31–33. https://doi.org/10.2979/jfemistudreli.34.2.04 (2015) discusses the same issue in detail and concludes that the first part of original reading of v. 25 was τὸ γὰρ Σινᾶ (“for Sinai …”). This reading is attested by some early manuscripts of the letter and one thus does not need to make a case for conjectural emendation.

2.2 Linguistic issues

Michael Bachmann 17 30 Op. cit., p. 33 (2000) disagrees with Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s 18 31 P. Verster, “The Implications of Non-Authentic Questions in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9 (2007), pp. 142–161. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52344 argument that Ἱεροσόλυμα (“Jerusalem”) in 1:17–18 is neuter plural, since Paul’s addressees are Gentile-Christians. Bachmann points out that this does not hold for Ἰερουσαλήμ (“Jerusalem”; feminine singular) in 4:25–26. According to Troy W. Martin 19 32 S.J. Hafemann, “‘Because of Weakness’ (Galatians 4:13): The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul”, in: P. Bolt and M. Thompson (eds.), The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission (Downers Grove IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000), pp. 131–146. Updated version: S.J. Hafemann, Paul: Servant of the New Covenant: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.435, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), pp. 142–164. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157702-4 (2002), the term “brothers” in 4:28 and 5:13a should not be read as a vocative but rather as a nominative. This helps one to grasp Paul’s strategy in Galatians as trying to foster unity between Jewish and non-Jewish believers on the basis of the freedom that they have in Christ. Frederick E. Brenk 20 33 Op. cit., p. 140. (2011) traces the double nomenclature for Jerusalem (Paul uses both terms in Galatians) to the Early Hellenistic period when Greeks possibly transmitted the name of the city in more than one form.

2.3 Stylistic issues

One of the slavery metaphors that Sam Tsang 21 34 P.T. Tantiono, Speaking the Truth in Christ: An Exegetico-Theological Study of Galatians 4,12–20 and Ephesians 4,12–16 (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 164, Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2008). (2005) discusses in the light of insights from the New Rhetoric occurs in v. 30. Tsang places this metaphor in the second of three categories: apologetic usage (1:1, 10, 6:17), polemical usage (2:4; 4:30) and didactic usage (3:23–26; 4:1–10). Susan G. Eastman 22 35 A. Asano, “Motherliness of God: A Search for Maternal Aspects in Paul’s Theology”, in: G.L. Green, S.T. Pardue and K.-K. Yeo (eds.), The Trinity among the Nations: The Doctrine of God in the Majority World (Grand Rapids MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2015), pp. 131–133. Also available in: A. Asano, “Motherliness of God: A Search for Maternal Aspects in Paul’s Theology”, in: G.L. Green, S.T. Pardue and K.-K. Yeo (eds.), Majority World Theology: Christian Doctrine in Global Context (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2020), pp. 89–91. (2007) focuses on the maternal images that Paul uses in particular in 4:12–5:2 – described as Paul’s “mother tongue” (a term coined by Ursula le Guin) demonstrating the “staying power” of the gospel. According to Eastman, one will only hear Paul fully if one also listens to his “mother tongue”: “… to the intensely relational inflections of his voice, the language of his maternal ‘labor’ with his converts. Paul uses the intimate imagery of family life to draw his converts back into the thread of conversation that mediates their life together”. 23 36 S.R. Garrett, No Ordinary Angel: Celestial Spirits and Christian Claims About Jesus (Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library, Binghamton NY: Vail-Ballou, 2008), p. 175. Peter Balla 24 37 B. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York NY: HarperOne, 2014), pp. 252–253. Ehrman also refers to Charles A. Gieschen, but Gieschen notes that Ehrman misquoted him. See: C.A. Gieschen, “Misquoting Gieschen”, Concordia Theological Quarterly 82:1/2 (2018), pp. 139–141. (2009) highlights Paul’s use of slavery imagery in Galatians 4 when referring to childhood of God. Balla shows that Paul uses these terms both in a literal and in a figurative sense. This is also true of this passage. It first refers to a real person (Hagar) and then to those rejecting God’s promises. Karl Matthias Schmidt 25 38 T.J. Nirmal Doss, “Until Christ Is Formed in You (Gal 4:19): An Exploration of Transformative Christology”, Indian Theological Studies (2011) draws attention to the fact that the image of birth pains that Paul uses in 4:19 occurs again in 4:27 where he refers to the heavenly Jerusalem. Schmidt interprets this as follows: By repeating the birth metaphor from v. 19 in 4:21–31, this pericope is linked (via 4:19) to 1:13–2:14. In 1:13–2:14, Paul associates himself with Arabia and his opponents with Jerusalem, but in 4:21–31, this situation is changed as he now associates himself with the heavenly Jerusalem and his opponents with the earthly Jerusalem that is now linked to Arabia.

2.4 Translation issues

Thomas Söding 26

56:1 (2019), pp. 31–47.

(2007) discusses the translation of this pericope in the Einheitsübersetzung critically. Söding identifies several translation errors and points out the effect of these errors: readers will not realise that this text expresses covenant theology. Söding also offers an alternative translation of vv. 22–26.

3. Wirkungsgeschichte

3.1 Early Church

Petra Heldt 27 39 P. la G. du Toit, “Ethnic Reasoning and Early Christian Identity: A Pauline Theological Perspective”, HTS: Theological Studies 76:1 (2020), pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i1.5800 (2006) explains how the Naassenes and the Valentinians interpreted vv. 26–27 (as reported by Hippolytus in his Refutation of all Heresies). Heldt shows that all of then – the Naassenes and the Valentinians, as well as Hippolytus – used the text to delineate an identity for Gentiles without really giving attention to Paul’s own skopos with the text. Juan Antonio Gil-Tamayo 28 40 M.F. Bird and J.A. Dunne, “Pastoring with a Big Stick: Paul as Pastor in Galatians”, in: B.S. Rosner, A.S. Malone and T.J. Burke (eds.), Paul as Pastor (London: T & T Clark/Bloomsbury, 2017), pp. 71–82. https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567677938.ch-006 (2008) elucidates the way in which this pericope was interpreted in Antiochian exegesis. Whereas the Alexandrian School used it to justify their allegorical interpretation of Old Testament texts, the School of Antioch interpreted it in a disciplined way, identifying relevant hermeneutic criteria. Bas van Os 29 41 B.J. Lappenga, “Misdirected Emulation and Paradoxical Zeal: Paul’s Redefinition of ‘The Good’ as Object of ζήλος in Galatians 4:12–20”, Journal of Biblical Literature 131:4 (2012), pp. 775–796. https://doi.org/10.2307/23488267 Updated version: B.J. Lappenga, Paul’s Language of ζῆλος: Monosemy and the Rhetoric of Identity and Practice (Biblical Interpretation Series 137, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2016), pp. 118–140. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004302457 (2010) explains the way in which Paul linked Sarah in this pericope to the New Jerusalem of Isaiah 54:1, how early Christians re-interpreted this prophecy in Isaiah in the light of the fact that Gentiles formed the majority in the Christian movement in their times, how Gnostic Christians (in particular in the Gospel of Philip) interpreted the Isaiah text allegorically, and how Irenaeus reacted to the claim that non-Gnostic Christians were children of the slave woman. Johan Leemans 30 42 Op. cit., p. 777. (2010) identifies and illustrates the following three tendencies in the way in which the Church Fathers interpreted Hagar: Some of them followed a line of interpretation pursued by Philo, others discussed the acceptability of Paul’s typological reading of the Hagar/Sarah events, and still others interpreted Hagar and Sarah as representing opposite options in religion (with Hagar normally representing a less attractive option). Wendy Elgersma Helleman 31 43 C. Rohmer, “Du deutéro-Élian à l’Élian historique: Relecture d’une course belle”, Études Théologiques et Religieuses 95:3 (2020), pp. 531–541. https://doi.org/10.3917/etr.953.0531 (2013) considers Augustine’s use of Paul’s Sarah-Hagar allegory against the Donatists and Judaisers of his time. Helleman contends that one should judge Augustine against his own context and also take note of the different ways in which he used the allegory in his writings. This gives rise to a more nuanced view of his use of the allegory. In another contribution, Helleman 32 44 E. González, “Paul’s Use of Metamorphosis in Its Graeco-Roman and Jewish Contexts”, DavarLogos 13:1 (2014), pp. 57–76. (2016) investigates two sermons of Augustine containing reflections on this pericope in order to determine if they may be regarded as anti-Semitic. Helleman concludes that one should rather speak of a degree of anti-Judaism in them. Justin M. Rogers 33 45 Op. cit., p. 75. (2014) points out that Didymus the Blind was the first exegete who tried to harmonise Philonic and Pauline interpretations of Hagar and Sarah. Rogers explains how Didymus followed Philo’s (literal and allegorical) interpretations of the two figures consistently but how he also combines such a Philonic interpretation with Paul’s interpretation in Galatians.

3.2 The Middle Ages

Deeana Klepper 34 1 Scholars do not divide this pericope in the same way. For arguments to include 5:1 with 4:21ff. and not the following pericope, see J. Lambrecht, Intended Sense of Scripture: Fifty Brief Exegetical Notes (2019–2020) (Beau Basin: Scholars’ Press, 2020), pp. 275–278. (2015) elucidates how it happened in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries that Hagar, traditionally associated with the old law and the synagogue, came to be associated by Christians with the Jews living in their midst. Klepper also highlights the role that Paul’s allegory in Galatians played in this process.

3.3 The sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries

Miekske L. van Poll-van de Lisdonk 35 2 J.C. O’Neill, “‘For This Hagar Is Mount Sinai in Arabia’ (Galatians 4.25)”, in: S. Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J.L. North (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 189, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 210–219. See also earlier: J.C. O’Neill, The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (London: SPCK, 1972), pp. 62–64. (2003) draws attention to three letters that Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda wrote to Erasmus in which he pointed out that the translation of v. 25 in the Vulgate and in Erasmus’ Novum Testamentum did not reflect Paul’s thought clearly and that the Greek text solved this problem. Erasmus responded positively and added an annotation on this verse in the 1535 edition of his Annotationes (without referring to Sepúlveda). One of the examples that Brooks Schramm and Kirsi I. Stjerna 36 3 A. Graupner, “Ein Berg in Arabien (Gal 4,25): Sinai – Gottesberg – Horeb”, in: J. Flebbe (ed.), Holy Places in Biblical and Extrabiblical Traditions: Proceedings of the Bonn-Leiden-Oxford Colloquium on Biblical Studies (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 179, Göttingen: V&R Unipress/Bonn University Press, 2016), pp. 13–22. https://doi.org/10.14220/9783737005913.13 (2012) pick to illustrate Luther’s attitude to the Jews is his exposition of the Sarah-Hagar allegory in his commentary on Galatians. Luther’s hostility to what he regarded as Jewish exclusivism is highlighted. Vladimir Brljak 37 4 A. Davis, “Allegorically Speaking in Galatians 4:21–5:1”, Bulletin for Biblical Research 14:2 (2004), pp. 161–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/bullbiblrese.14.2.0161 (2015) argues that John Milton was familiar with the disputes surrounding v. 24 and that this helps one to understand his anti-allegorical stance, as is evident in his “Paradise Regain’d”. Jeannette Kreijkes-van Esch 38 5 S. di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory of the Two Covenants (Gal 4.21–31) in Light of First-Century Hellenistic Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics”, New Testament Studies 52:1 (2006), pp. 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688506000063 (2017) explains the impact that certain theological concepts had on Calvin’s reception of Chrysostom by looking at Calvin’s exegesis of vv. 21–26. It is shown that an emphasis on the sensus literalis does not necessarily prevent one from reading one’s own theology into the text.

3.4 The nineteenth to the twenty-first centuries

Letty M. Russell 39 6 B. van der Lans, “Belonging To Abraham’s Kin: Genealogical Appeals To Abraham as a Possible Background for Paul’s Abrahamic Argument”, in: M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten and J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill 2010), pp. 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004216495_021 (2006) offers an overview of the way in which this passage has been interpreted by male scholars as well as by female scholars following a feminist and postcolonial approach, thus noting the “twists and turns” both in Paul’s allegory and the way in which it has been interpreted. Brendan Byrne 40 7 G. H. van Kooten, “Philosophical Criticism of Genealogical Claims and Stoic Depoliticization of Politics: Greco-Roman Strategies in Paul’s Allegorical Interpretation of Hagar and Sarah (Gal 4:21–31)”, in: M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten and J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2010), pp. 361–385. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004216495_024 (2014) rejects J. Louis Martyn’s interpretation of the two covenants in this pericope (traditionally understood as a reference to Judaism and Christianity) as referring to Paul’s opponents and Paul’s law-free mission to the Gentiles respectively. Byrne defends the traditional interpretation but also points out that it does not necessarily imply an anti-Jewish interpretation of the text. Joel Marcus 41 8 J.C. de Vos, “Jerusalem: Why on Earth Is It in Heaven? A Comparison between Galatians 4:21–31 and 2 Baruch 4:1–7”, in: E. van der Steen, J. Boertien and N. Mulder-Hymans (eds.), Exploring the Narrative: Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 583, London/New Delhi/New York NY/Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2014), pp. 327–338. (2017) also looks critically at Martyn’s exegesis of this pericope and finds it indefensible.

3.5 Studies addressing contemporary situations

J.W. Maris 42 9 M.B. Cover, “‘Now and Above; Then and Now’ (Gal. 4:21–31): Platonizing and Apocalyptic Polarities in Paul’s Eschatology”, in: M.W. Elliott, S.J. Hafemann, N.T. Wright and J. Frederick (eds.), Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 220–229. (2008) focuses on the missionary task of the church, in particular in the light of the fact that the heavenly Jerusalem is called “mother” in v. 26. Maris argues that the church cannot claim these heavenly qualities directly. It should rather use the mother image to view itself critically and to focus on mission. Angelika Magnes 43 10 M. Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190271756.001.0001 (2010) draws attention to the fact that this pericope has been interpreted in the past in an anti-Jewish fashion as indicating the removal of the Jewish nation as the primary salvation partner of God but points out that such a view is incorrect, since the pericope refers to a specific conflict in Galatia and does not address the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. According to Jakob Wöhrle 44 11 B. Trick, Abrahamic Descent, Testamentary Adoption, and the Law in Galatians: Differentiating Abraham’s Sons, Seed, and Children of Promise (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 169, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2016). (2011), Isaac and Ishmael are depicted in this pericope and in Genesis 17 as unequal and even as contradictory brothers and thus one cannot speak of an “Abrahamic ecumenism” (“abrahamische Ökumene”) in the Biblical traditions. Nevertheless, these texts may still be of importance for the interreligious and intercultural dialogue for our time. Alice Matilda Nsiah and Eric Nii Bortey Anum 45 12 J.M. Zurawski, “Mosaic Torah as Encyclical paideia: Reading Paul’s Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in Light of Philo of Alexandria’s”, in: K.M. Hogan, M. Goff and E. Wasserman (eds.), Pedagogy in Ancient, Judaism and Early Christianity (Early Judaism and Its Literature 41, Atlanta GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017), pp. 283–308. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1qqhfvv.16 (2014) appropriate this pericope for the Ghanaian context. Some Ghanaians play the same power games as the Judaisers, and Ghanaians should thus rather realise that the New Jerusalem implies freedom and justice for them. Rusmir Mahmutćehajić 46 13 J. Hicks-Keeton, “Putting Paul in His Place: Diverse Diasporas and Sideways Spaces in Hellenistic Judaism”, Journal of the Jesus Movement in Its Jewish Setting 6 (2019), pp. 1–21. (2014) offers meditations on relations between Muslims and Christians by focusing on Muhammed and Mary, the mother of Jesus. One of the meditations is devoted to Sarah and Hagar in the light of Paul’s allegory in 4:21–31.

3.6 Studies covering broader periods of time

One of the examples that John L. Thompson 47 14 H. Förster, “Ein Papyrusfragment mit sahidischem Text aus dem Galaterbrief (Gal 4,20c–24a. 25c–28): Edition von P.Vindob. K. 7598”, in: R. Pillinger (ed.), Mitteilungen zur Christlichen Archäologie 15 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009), pp. 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1553/micha15s77 (2001) uses to show how women in the Old Testament who were depicted as experiencing violence were interpreted by “traditional” interpreters is Hagar. According to Thompson, it does not seem as if Paul’s allegorical interpretation of Hagar in Galatians prejudiced later interpreters too much, since Patristic, medieval and Reformation commentators displayed an intense interest in Hagar’s suffering. Christopher Heard 48 15 S.C. Carlson, “‘For Sinai Is a Mountain in Arabia’: A Note on the Text of Galatians 4,25”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 105:1 (2014), pp. 80–101. https://doi.org/10.1515/znw-2014-0005 (2014) discusses the interpretation of the stories of Hagar and Ishmael in Genesis 16–25 critically. Heard classifies the approaches to these stories as either allegorical (as in Paul’s case), literal or moral, pointing out that Hagar and Ishmael almost always end up being depicted negatively and thus suggests better ways of interpreting the stories about them. Nyasha Junior 49 16 C.M. Tuckett, “The Text of Galatians 4:25a”, in: D. Gurtner, J. Hernández Jr. and P. Foster (eds.), Studies on the Text of the New Testament and Early Christianity: Essays in Honour of Michael W. Holmes (New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 50, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2015), pp. 372–388. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004300026_018 (2019) offers a history of reception of Hagar, focusing in particular on the view that Hagar was a black woman. In the first chapter, Junior looks at the way in which Hagar is represented in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament (Galatians 4) and the Qur’an. Junior points out that these texts did not offer a physical description of Hagar but were rather used to rationalise ethnic or religious differences.

4. Interpretative approaches

4.1 Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures

Studies on Paul’s exegetical strategy in the pericope Torsten Löfstedt 50 17 M. Bachmann, “ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΑ und ΙΕΡΟΥΣΑΛΗΜ im Galaterbrief”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 91:3 (2000), pp. 288–289. Also available in: M. Bachmann, Von Paulus zur Apokalypse – und weiter: Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Neuen Testament (samt englischsprachigen Summaries) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 91, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 71–72. (2000) describes Paul’s exegetical strategy as “allegory” but stresses that Paul used it in a restrained way. Löfstedt also highlights the fact that the deeper meaning that Paul found in this case was connected to Christ. In the light of the problematic Wirkungsgeschichte of this pericope, Angela Standhartinger 51 18 J. Murphy-O’Connor, “ΙΕΡΟΣΟΛΥΜΑ/ΙΕΡΟΥΣΑΛΗΜ in Galatians”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 90:3/4 (1999), pp. 280–281. (2002) discusses Paul’s handling of Hagar. Standhartinger identifies three steps in Paul’s argumentation: (1) juxtapositioning the free-born son of the promise with the fleshly son of Hagar (vv. 21–23), (2) seeking for a deeper meaning underlying the events by using the concept “Jerusalem above”, and a citation of Isaiah 54:1 to “blend” the two women (vv. 24–27) and (3) an argument to “drive out” Hagar, i.e., a call to practise the freedom shared by Jews and people of all nations jointly (vv. 28–31). Daniel Gerber 52 19 T.W. Martin, “The Brother Body: Addressing and Describing the Galatians and the Agitators as ἀδελφοί”, Biblical Research 47 (2002), pp. 5–18. (2002) describes Paul’s exegetical strategy in this pericope as typological construction based on an arbitrary allegorical foundation – an exegetical tour de force caused by anger rather than reason. Todd A. Wilson 53 20 F.E. Brenk, “Hierosolyma: The Greek Name of Jerusalem (in memoriam Günter Neumann)”, Glotta 87:1–4 (2011), pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.13109/glot.2011.87.14.1 (2004) claims that Paul uses the theme of Israel’s wilderness apostasy in Galatians. Accordingly, the Galatians are depicted as on the verge of a wilderness apostasy, somewhere between redemption (as happened in Exodus) and inheriting the kingdom of God. This passage is one of the passages in which Wilson finds this notion. Joel Willitts 54 21 S. Tsang, From Slaves to Sons: A New Rhetoric Analysis on Paul’s Slave Metaphors in His Letter to the Galatians (Studies in Biblical Literature 81, New York NY: Peter Lang, 2005), pp. 63–73. (2005) contends that scholars wrongly assume that Paul interprets Genesis and the Abraham narrative in this pericope. Instead, Willitts believes that Paul interprets Isaiah 54 and the narrative of Israel. According to Jeremy Punt 55 22 S.G. Eastman, Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue: Language and Theology in Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans, 2007). (2007), Sarah’s position as mother of the Jews is subverted in this pericope and in 1 Peter. She rather becomes a model of Christian faith and is depicted in this way to further the persuasive goals of the two authors. Moisés Silva 56 23 Op. cit., pp. 181–183. (2007) identifies Paul’s exegetical approach in this pericope as typological rather than allegorical. Paul wishes to convey a very important theological truth, namely that God works according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh. Mary Mills 57 24 P. Balla, “Paul’s Use of Slavery Imagery in the Hagar Allegory”, In die Skriflig 43:1 (2009), pp. 119–134. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v43i1.217 (2008) describes Paul’s exegetical strategy in this pericope as an imaginative interpretation of events narrated in the Hebrew Scriptures with Abraham serving as prototype. This is supported by an allegorical reading of Sarah and Hagar in such a way that everything is creatively focused on Christ. In a next step, Mills utilises narrative criticism to imaginatively interpret Sarah and Hagar (in Genesis) as models of identity. Mark Gignilliat 58 25 K.M. Schmidt, “Die Wehen des Völkerapostels: Gal 4,19 und die topographische Verankerung des Heidenapostolats innerhalb von Gal 1,13–2,14 und Gal 4,21–31”, Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 36 (2011), pp. 111–156. (2008) uses this passage to illustrate that Paul’s exegetical strategy fits in well with the way in which the Bible, in particular the Hebrew Scriptures, was read figuratively in the exegetical tradition. It confirms that the Bible should be read in the light of its subject matter, Christ. According to Troy A. Miller 59 26 T. Söding, “‘Sie ist unsre Mutter’: Die Allegorie über Sara und Hagar (Gal 4,21–31) in der Einheitsübersetzung und bei Paulus”, in: C. Dohmen and F.-L. Hossfeld (eds.), Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel: Festgabe für Frank-Lothar Hossfeld zum 65. Geburtstag (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 211, Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007), pp. 231–237. (2009), in this pericope, Paul subverts the traditional negative Jewish interpretation of Hagar (a view probably stemming from his opponents). It is thus not the case that he presents a negative interpretation of Hagar in the letter. Ladislav Tichý 60 27 P. Heldt, “Delineating Identity in the Second and Third Century CE: The Case of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians 4:21–31 in the Writings of Hippolytus”, Studia Patristica 42 (2006), pp. 163–168. (2009) prefers to describe Paul’s rhetorical strategy in this pericope as typology rather than allegory, since he does not deny that events narrated in Genesis happened. Furthermore, Tichý emphasises that Paul’s exegetical approach was decisively influenced by his belief in Christ. A.B. Caneday 61 28 J.A. Gil-Tamayo, “‘Todo Esto Tiene un Sentido Alegórico’ (Ga 4,24): La Exégesis Antioquena de Gálatas 4,21–31”, Scripta Theologica 40:1 (2008), pp. 35–63. (2010) contends that the Genesis text that Paul used upheld the authenticity of events that were narrated but also had an allegorical side and that this warranted Paul’s argument in this pericope. Dieter Sänger 62 29 B. van Os, “Children of the Slave Woman: The Gnostic Christian Reinterpretation of Paul’s Allegory of Hagar”, in: M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten and J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions 13, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2010), pp. 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004188433.i-578.127 (2011) describes Paul’s interpretative strategy in this pericope as Christian identity formation by means of “Namenallegorese” (i.e., the allegorisation of names). In the first part, Paul develops metaphorical contrasts antithetically, and in the second part, he constructs Christian identity narratively, in particular by focusing on the liberty that is based on Christ and that is experienced by means of faith. Dan Batovici 63 30 J. Leemans, “After Philo and Paul: Hagar in the Writings of the Church Fathers”, in: M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten and J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions 13, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2010), pp. 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004188433.i-578.144 (2013) discusses the function of references to the Hebrew Scriptures in Galatians. Batovici shows that Paul generally uses them as providing proof for his arguments. Sometimes he departs from the original meaning of the quotation and in several cases, he tells believers what to do even if the text that he cites indicates the opposite. According to Peter Wick 64 31 W.E. Helleman, “‘Abraham Had Two Sons’: Augustine and the Allegory of Sarah and Hagar (Galatians 4:21–31)”, Calvin Theological Journal 48:1 (2013), pp. 35–64. (2013), this pericope serves as the climax of Paul’s argument in Galatians and introduces the actual reason for the letter: the prohibition of circumcision for all who have come to faith in Christ. Paul argues that believers who wish to be circumcised have switched to a different spiritual mother, city and covenant. Joseph Hyung S. Lee 65 32 W.E. Helleman, “Casting out Hagar: Anti-Judaism in the Sermons of Augustine”, Calvin Theological Journal 51:1 (2016), pp. 20–36. (2013) describes Paul’s use of Scripture as “apocalyptic allegory” and explains his use of Genesis and Isaiah in terms of three perspectives: intertextuality, the use of a historical narrative and an apocalyptic perspective. Matthew Y. Emerson 66 33 J.M. Rogers, “The Philonic and the Pauline: Hagar and Sarah in the Exegesis of Didymus the Blind”, The Studia Philonica Annual 26 (2014), pp. 57–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qh1xp.6 (2013) argues that if one reads Paul’s argument in this pericope from the perspective of intertextuality it becomes clear that the Hagar and Sinai narratives are closely related and that Paul interpreted them appropriately. Michael B. Shepherd 67 34 D. Klepper, “Historicizing Allegory: The Jew as Hagar in Medieval Christian Text and Image”, Church History 84:2 (2015), pp. 308–344. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640715000086 (2014) brings together in one volume cases where “the text in the middle” is important, meaning that “the way in which the text is cited has already been anticipated in a previous citation of the original text, thus involving at least three texts (primary, secondary, and tertiary)”. 68 35 M.L. van Poll-van de Lisdonk, “Erasmus’ Note on Gal 4:25: The Connection between Mount Sinai and Jerusalem”, in: F. García Martínez and G.P. Luttikhuizen (eds.), Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome: Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst (Supplements to the In the case of Galatians, Shepherd offers an overview of how this happens in this pericope (as well as in 3:6, 8, 11, 12, 16 and 19). Matthew S. Harmon 69

pp. 255–262. Journal for the Study of Judaism 82, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2003), https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047402794_021

(2014) interprets the verb ἀλληγορέω (“speak allegorically”) in this pericope as referring to something having a deeper meaning. Paul thus perceived a deeper meaning in Genesis 16–21, which only became clear by looking at it through Isaiah 54:1. One of the issues that Robert C. Gregg 70 36 B. Schramm and K.I. Stjerna (eds.), Martin Luther, the Bible, and the Jewish People: A Reader (Minneapolis MN: Fortress, 2012), pp. 59–66. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt22nm6gf (2015) discusses in a study of narratives shared by Jews, Christians and Muslims is the story of Sarah and Hagar. Gregg describes Paul’s allegory as “bold” and “idiosyncratic”. Paul used it for the radical claim that “the covenant blessing God first bestowed upon Abraham and his successors … had passed from the Jews to the new community.” 71 37 V. Brljak, “The Satanic ‘Or’: Milton and Protestant Anti-Allegorism”, Review of English Studies 66:275 (2015), pp. 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgv011 Yongbom Lee’s 72 38 J. Kreijkes-van Esch, “Sola Scriptura and Calvin’s Appeal to Chrysostom’s Exegesis”, in: H. Burger, A. Huijgen and E. Peels (eds.), Sola Scriptura: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneutics (Studies in Reformed Theology 32, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2017), pp. 260–275. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004356436_016 See also earlier: J. Kreijkes, “The Impact of Theological Concepts on Calvin’s Reception of Chrysostom’s Exegesis of Galatians 4:21–6”, Studia Patristica 96 (2017), pp. 57–63. (2015) study focuses on Paul’s knowledge and use of the Jesus tradition. This pericope is one of the passages that Lee discusses. In this instance, Lee points out that Paul interpreted the LXX in more or less the same way as it happens in some of the Qumran writings. David I. Starling 73 39 L.M. Russell, “Twists and Turns in Paul’s Allegory”, in: P. Trible and L.M. Russell (eds.), Hagar, Sarah, and Their Children: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), pp. 71–97. (2015) identifies the following six warrants on which Paul’s allegory in this pericope is based: Genesis, Isaiah, Israel’s story, Christology and eschatology, the Galatians’ own experience and Paul’s authority as apostle and as the founder of the congregation. Starling emphasises that Paul’s allegorisation was not speculative and does not give us the right to make use of speculative allegorisation. In a study of the history of reception of Genesis 21 in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Gudrun Holtz 74 40 B. Byrne, “Jerusalems Above and Below: A Critique of J.L. Martyn’s Interpretation of the Hagar-Sarah Allegory in Gal 4.21–5.1”, New Testament Studies 60:2 (2014), pp. 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688513000362 (2017) discusses this pericope. Although it does not presuppose a virginial conception, Abraham’s role in Isaac’s conception is not mentioned but God’s power is stressed, since Isaac is depicted as a son according to the Spirit. According to Elitzur A. Bar-Asher Siegal and Michal Bar-Asher Siegal 75 41 J. Marcus, “Lou Martyn, Paul, and Judaism”, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 7:1/2 (2017), pp. 112–118. https://doi.org/10.5325/jstudpaullett.7.1-2.0112 (2018), the whole argument in this pericope is based on the quotation from Isaiah 54:1, but one should realise that Paul understood be‛ûlâh in the late-Hebrew sense of “a woman who had sexual intercourse”. This implies that he might have understood šômēmah as meaning “a woman who did not have intercourse”. Kathryn Greene-McCreight 76 42 J.W. Maris, De Missie van een Moeder (Apeldoornse Studies 50, Apeldoorn: Theologische Universiteit, 2008). (2020) interprets Paul’s handling of the narratives of Sarah and Hagar in this pericope as a “figuring in” whereby Paul guides his readers into the Christological and ecclesial scopes of the narratives. In this way, he focuses their attention on important themes in the letter: seed, spiritual inheritance and Christian identity. Martinus C. de Boer 77 43 A. Magnes, “‘Different Mothers, Births and Inheritances’: Die Rede von zwei Frauen in Gal 4,21–31”, in: I. Fischer and C. Heil (eds.), Geschlechterverhältnisse und Macht: Lebensformen in der Zeit des frühen Christentums (Exegese in unserer Zeit 21, Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2010), pp. 110–127. (2020) discusses the status that the text of the Hebrew Scriptures had for Paul in Galatians, in particular its value or authority. De Boer believes that Paul selected texts that supported his interpretation of the gospel and that undermined the claims of his opponents. Since Scripture was regarded as an absolute authority by his opponents, Paul tried to make it captive for his own gospel. Mark A. Seifrid 78 44 J. Wöhrle, “Isaak und Ismael: Zum Verhältnis der beiden Abrahamsöhne nach Genesis 17 und Galater 4,21–31”, Evangelische Theologie 71:2 (2011), pp. 115–132. https://doi.org/10.14315/evth-2011-71-2-115 (2020) explains Paul’s hermeneutic in this pericope as follows: “It is not Paul who reads the text allegorically. The text speaks allegorically. The Law itself makes the leap from Genesis to Galatia. … The text – even the text of the Law – interprets him and the Galatians, and imparts to them a new identity in Christ in whom it is fulfilled.” 79 45 A.M. Nsiah and E.N.B. Anum, “Hagar Sarah Allegory: An Intertexture Study of Gal 4:21–31 and Its Application to the Ghanaian Context”, in: C.N. Omenyo and E.B. Anum (eds.), Trajectories of Religion in Africa: Essays in Honour of John S. Pobee (Studies in World Christianity & Interreligious Relations 48, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2014), pp. 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401210577_023 Paul’s use of themes from the Hebrew Scriptures Karin B. Neutel 80 46 R. Mahmutćehajić, The Praised and the Virgin: Translated by Desmond Maurer and Saba Risaluddin (Philosophy of Religion: World Religions, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2014), pp. 165–171. (2010) explains the way in which Paul understands Abraham as universal ancestor in Galatians as follows: Through Christ’s death and resurrection a new era has been inaugurated in which God does not distinguish between Jews and Gentiles anymore. Access to God is thus universal and both Jews and Gentiles are God’s children. Ulrike Bechmann 81 47 J.L. Thompson, Writing the Wrongs: Women of the Old Testament among Biblical Commentators from Philo through the Reformation (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology, Oxford/New York NY: Oxford University Press, 2001). https://doi.org/10.1093/0195137361.001.0001 (2011) explains how Paul uses Abraham and Sarah in Galatians and Romans as figures of “unbounding” (“Entgrenzung”). In this passage, Sarah is associated with spiritual liberty and faith, thereby connecting Christ, the centre of Christian faith, with the Jewish tradition of salvation and promise. Jeremy Punt 82 48 C. Heard, “On the Road to Paran: Toward a Christian Perspective on Hagar and Ishmael”, Interpretation 68:3 (2014), pp. 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020964314529516 (2011) draws attention to the way in which Paul uses the Abraham narrative in Genesis 16 and 21 in this pericope for the identity formation of Jesus followers. His hermeneutics thus supports identity formation, and, reciprocally, his view of believers’ identity in Christ determined his hermeneutics. Studies discussing the matter from the perspective of the Hebrew Scriptures In a contribution on Paul’s use of Second Isaiah in Galatians, Martinus C. de Boer 83 49 N. Junior, Reimagining Hagar: Blackness and Bible (Biblical Refigurations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198745327.003.0001 (2002) argues that there are clear indications that Paul knew Second Isaiah and that he used insights from it to formulate his own apocalyptic eschatology. De Boer discusses 1:15–16, 4:19, 21–5:1 and 6:15. Miguel Antonio Camelo V 84 50 T. Löfstedt, “The Allegory of Hagar and Sarah: Gal 4.21–31”, Estudios Bíblicos 58:4 (2000), pp. 475–494. (2015) proposes a combination of a synchronic and a diachronic approach to the exegesis of Jeremiah 31:31–34 and suggests that the results imply that 4:21–31 primarily refers to a distinction between two types of believers and not between two types of covenants. Studies on verse 26 According to Christl M. Maier 85 51 A. Standhartinger, “‘Zur Freiheit ... befreit’? Hagar im Galaterbrief”, Evangelische Theologie 62:4 (2002), pp. 288–303. (2007), Psalm 87 should be viewed as a reappraisal of the Zion tradition. Furthermore, Maier believes that Paul’s claim in this verse that Jerusalem is also the mother of the Gentiles is based on Psalm 86 LXX. Diego Pérez-Gondar 86 52 D. Gerber, “Ga 4,21–31 ou l’indéfinissable méthode?”, in: R. Kuntzmann (ed.), Typologie biblique: De quelques figures vives (Lectio Divina, Paris: Cerf, 2002), pp. 165–176. (2020) discusses the dependencies between different versions of Psalm 87:5 and then explains the influence this text had on v. 26 and 4 Ezra 10:7–10 and how it was modified in each instance. Studies on verse 27 According to Martinus C. de Boer 87 53 T.A. Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy and Paul’s Portrayal of the Crisis in Galatians”, New Testament Studies 50:4 (2004), pp. 550–571. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688504000311 (2004), Paul reflected on Isaiah 54:1 in the light of the crisis in Galatia and this prompted his allegorical interpretation of the story in Genesis, in that the two women who are contrasted in Isaiah 54:1 provided him with an apocalyptic antinomy which helped him to find other pairs in the Genesis story which he could interpret within a Christological and apocalyptic eschatology. One of the issues that J. Ross Wagner 88 54 J. Willitts, “Isa 54,1 in Gal 4,24b: Reading Genesis in Light of Isaiah”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 96:3/4 (2005), pp. 188–210. https://doi.org/10.1515/zntw.2005.96.3-4.188 (2005) discusses, is Paul’s use of Isaiah 54:1 in this verse. Wagner points out that Paul seems to show an awareness of the way in which the passage functioned within its wider setting in Isaiah. Alicia D. Myers 89 55 J. Punt, “Subverting Sarah in the New Testament: Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3”, Scriptura 96 (2007), pp. 453–468. https://doi.org/10.7833/96-0-1168 (2010) argues that one should understand Paul’s use of Isaiah 54:1 in this verse against his earlier appeals to the Hebrew Scriptures in Chapters 3 and 4. If this is done, it emerges that his quotation in this verse is part of a cumulative argument meant to persuade his readers that his mission to the non-Jews was prefigured in the Hebrew Scriptures. Bas van Os 90 56 M. Silva, “Galatians”, in: G. Beale and D. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2007), pp. 785–810. (2010) explains how Paul linked Sarah in this passage to the New Jerusalem of Isaiah 54:1, how early Christians re-interpreted this prophecy in Isaiah in the light of the fact that Gentiles formed the majority in the Christian movement in their times, how Gnostic Christians (in particular, according to the Gospel of Philip) interpreted the Isaiah text allegorically and how Irenaeus reacted to the claim that non-Gnostic Christians were children of the slave woman. According to David I. Starling 91 57 M. Mills, “The Story of Abraham and Models of Human Identity”, New Blackfriars 89:1021 (2008), pp. 280–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2005.2008.00221.x (2011), Paul’s use of Isaiah 54:1 in this verse is not explained sufficiently by the apocalyptic or Christological notions that he brings to the text or even the wider context of Isaiah. It should rather be understood in terms of a larger argument from Scripture that Paul uses in the letter. In another contribution, Starling 92 58 M. Gignilliat, “Paul, Allegory, and the Plain Sense of Scripture: Galatians 4:21–31”, Journal of Theological Interpretation 2:1 (2008), pp. 135–146. https://doi.org/10.2307/jtheointe.2.1.0135 (2013) also points out that Paul’s claim that “the Jerusalem above” is “our mother” (thus including uncircumcised believers in Galatia among Jerusalem’s children) makes sense if one reads the text that he provides as proof (Isaiah 54:1) in terms of the salvation-historical framework that he develops in previous parts in the letter. The contribution of Mark S. Gignilliat 93 59 T.A. Miller, “Surrogate, Slave and Deviant? The Figure of Hagar in Jewish Tradition and Paul (Galatians 4.21–31)”, in: C.A. Evans and H.D. Zacharias (eds.), Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 2: Exegetical Studies (Library of New Testament Studies 392, London/New York NY: T & T Clark, 2009), pp. 138–154. (2015) is informed by developments in Isaianic research. In Isaiah 54–66, Abraham’s offspring is interpreted in terms of the servant’s offspring, and in Galatians, Paul understands the quotation from Isaiah 54:1 in terms of the Isaianic offspring theology. Studies on verse 30 Susan G. Eastman 94 60 L. Tichý, “Biblické Argumenty Apoštola Pavla v Gal 4,21–31”, Studia Theologica 38:4 (2009), pp. 1–14. (2006) disagrees with scholars who interpret this verse as implying that Jews are excluded from salvation or as urging the Galatians to expel the opponents. Eastman believes that Paul is rather letting the Galatians listen to Scripture announcing the gospel to Abraham (as happens in 3:8), thus emphasising God’s faithfulness.

4.2 Social-scientific/sociological approaches

Leonor Ossa 95 61 A.B. Caneday, “Covenant Lineage Allegorically Prefigured: ‘Which Things Are Written Allegorically’ (Galatians 4:21–31)”, The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 14:3 (2010), pp. 50–77. (2004) detects a counter-programme aimed at contemporary Roman views of urbanity in Galatians. Taking the two cities in this pericope as a point of departure, Ossa discusses the urban theology in the letter and concludes that the letter shows that the classical experiences of a democratic city were never really extinguished. According to Brigitte Kahl 96 62 D. Sänger, “Sara, die Freie – unsere Mutter: Namenallegorese als Interpretament christlicher Identitätsbildung in Gal 4,21–31”, in: R. Deines, J. Herzer and K.-W. Niebuhr (eds.), Neues Testament und hellenistich-jüdische Alltagskultur: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: III. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, 21.–24. Mai 2009, Leipzig (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.274, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), pp. 213–239. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151563-7 (2004), Paul’s aim in this passage is not to drive out people that are socially weak: “‘Drive out the slave’ means the whole hierarchical division of humanity into superior and inferior, excluded and included, which shapes the present world”. 97 63 D. Batovici, “A Few Notes on the Use of the Scripture in Galatians”, Sacra Scripta: Journal of the Centre for Biblical Studies 11:2 (2013), pp. 287‑301. In another contribution, Kahl 98 64 P. Wick, “Das himmlische Jerusalem in Gal 4,21–31 oder die Mutter macht den Unterschied: Antiethische Polarität als Matrix im Galaterbrief”, Theologische Zeitschrift 69:4 (2013), pp. 320–337. https://doi.org/10.5169/seals-877669 (2013) draws attention to the way in which the Roman Emperor was depicted as world conqueror, god and father visually, for example in the Augustus Forum, and the different picture offered by Galatians: in Christ, people become part of a Messianic family, in which binary distinctions are replaced by hybrid horizontal relationships, not Hagar but the free woman with her alternative metropole. In a third contribution, Kahl 99 65 J.H.S. Lee, “Apocalyptic Allegory: Paul’s Use of Genesis and Isaiah in Galatians 4:19–5:1”, in: H.C. Kim (ed.), Galatians as Examined by Diverse Academics in 2012 (St. Andrews, Scotland) (Hermit Kingdom Studies in (2014) argues that v. 30 was not meant to exclude Jewishness or to affirm issues such as racism or slavery. It was rather aimed critically at the subjugation of people to the law of the conquerors (as can be seen in Roman iconography). Ryan Heinsch 100

Press, 2013), pp. 42–56. Christianity and Judaism 3, Newark NJ/Seoul: The Hermit Kingdom

(2016) evaluates Philip Esler’s analysis of this pericope in order to determine whether David Horrell’s criticism that Esler’s approach flattens his conclusions is justified. Heinsch finds that this is indeed the case.

4.3 Rhetorical approaches

Christopher D. Stanley 101 66 M.Y. Emerson, “Arbitrary Allegory, Typical Typology, or Intertextual Interpretation? Paul’s Use of the Pentateuch in Galatians 4:21–31”, Biblical Theology Bulletin 43:1 (2013), pp. 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146107912470332 (2004) investigates Paul’s “rhetoric of quotations”. In the case of Galatians, Stanley discusses 3:6–14 and this pericope and concludes that the audience that Paul had in mind did not know the Hebrew Scriptures well. They only had a modest knowledge of these Scriptures and Paul adapted his rhetoric to their capabilities. Mika Hietanen 102 67 M.B. Shepherd, The Text in the Middle (Studies in Biblical Literature 162, New York NY/Bern/Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2014), pp. 41–42. (2005) offers a pragma-dialectical analysis of 3:1–5:12 and identifies three arguments in this pericope: those according to the flesh persecute the Galatians, people of the old covenant were enslaved, and the Galatians have become children of the promise. 103 68 Op. cit., p. 2. In a text-based rhetorical analysis of the letter, D. Francois Tolmie 104 69 M.S. Harmon, “Allegory, Typology, or Something Else: Revisiting Galatians 4:21–5:1”, in: M.S. Harmon and J.E. Smith (eds.), Studies in the Pauline Epistles: Essays in Honor of Douglas J. Moo (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 2014), pp. 144–158. (2005) summarises Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope as using the authority of Scripture to present an allegorical exposition of the Hagar-Sarah stories dominated by a metaphorical contrast between two kinds of sonship: sonship characterised by slavery and sonship characterised by freedom. He does so in order to urge the Galatians not to yield to the opponents, but rather to remain “free”. James A. Kelhoffer 105 70 R.C. Gregg, Shared Stories, Rival Tellings: Early Encounters of Jews, Christians and Muslims (New York NY/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 117–216. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190231491. 001.0001 (2009) explains how Paul uses the notion of suffering as a defence of his apostolic authority. V. 29 is one of the instances that Kelhoffer discusses (the others are 5:11, 6:12 and 6:17). According to Kelhoffer, the point that Paul tries to get across is that his opponents avoided persecution whereas he was willing to suffer for the gospel – a state of affairs that confirms his status as an apostle. Antonio Pitta 106 71 Op. cit., p. 218. (2015) draws attention to mimesis in Galatians. Although it does not occur explicitly, it is found implicitly in vv. 28–31 (as well as in 1:13–2:21 and 3:5–6). This shows that mimesis was very important to Paul in situations where religious identity was in danger.

4.4 Narrative approaches

In an analysis of narrativity and intertextuality in this pericope, Alain Gignac 107 72 Y. Lee, Paul, Scribe of Old and New: Intertextual Insights for the Jesus-Paul Debate (Library of New Testament Studies 512, London/New York NY: (2005) focuses on issues such as characterisation and elliptic narration. Gignac shows that the important question was not who was a descendant of Abraham but in which logic the believer was situated – that of a servant or that of Isaac.

4.5 Ideology-critical approaches

Charles T. Davis III 108

Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015).

(2002) points out that early believers created a new identity narrative based on the meta-narrative of the Jewish faith. This process was inspired by the Spirit and Paul thus urged believers to remain faithful to the power of the Spirit, but unfortunately, he also made use of toxic texts such as this pericope to dismiss his Jewish opponents – a form of behaviour that should not be followed in our times. Jeremy Punt 109 73 D.I. Starling, “Justifying Allegory: Scripture, Rhetoric, and Reason in Galatians 4:21–5:1”, Journal of Theological Interpretation 9:2 (2015), pp. 227–245. https://doi.org/10.2307/jtheointe.9.2.0227 (2006) situates Paul’s exegetical practice in this pericope in terms of exegetical practices in the first century CE. By rereading the events in Scripture, Paul brings about a cultural revision. Furthermore, Punt points out that this pericope reveals Paul’s ambivalent position regarding issues of gender and power. In another contribution, Punt 110 74 G. Holtz, Jungfrauengeburt und Greisinnengeburt: Zur Rezeptionsgeschichte von Gen 21,1f im antiken Judentum und im frühen Christentum (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 172, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), pp. 83–92. (2014) investigates the complex relationships between masculinity and lineage in the New Testament, in particular, the way in which the ambivalence around masculinity and the ever-changing role of genealogies gave rise to Paul’s intricate reasoning in this pericope. Raquel Echevarría 111 75 E.A. Bar-Asher Siegal and M. Bar-Asher Siegal, “The Hebrew-Based Traditions in Galatians 4:21–31”, Early Christianity 9:4 (2018), pp. 404–431. https://doi.org/10.1628/ec-2018-0030 (2016) offers a rereading of the role of Hagar in this pericope. Paul depicts her as an example of slavery, but in the light of Genesis 16 and 21 one should rather view her as somebody representing women who are abandoned but who are willing to take the risk to walk into the desert in hope of a better future. Mitzi J. Smith 112 76 K. Greene-McCreight, “Figured In: Nonliteral Reading, the Rule of Faith, and Galatians 4”, in: D. Collett, M. Elliott, M. Gignilliat and E. Radner (eds.), The Identity of Israel’s God in Christian Scripture: Essays in Honor of Christopher R. Seitz (Resources for Biblical Study 96, Atlanta GA: SBL Press, 2020), pp. 339–352. (2020) challenges Paul (“talks back” to Paul), since he exploits Hagar, an enslaved, in order to promote a gospel proclaiming freedom. Amongst others, this pericope shows that there still is a distinction between slave and free amongst believers.

4.6 Intersectional approach

Marianne Bjelland Kartzow 113 77 M.C. de Boer, Paul, Theologian of God’s Apocalypse: Essays on Paul and Apocalyptic (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2020), pp. 153–168. See also the earlier version: M. C. de Boer, “Observations on the Significance of (2017) uses an intersectional approach (i.e., a focus on how categories of oppression overlap, thus modifying and reinforcing each other) to interpret this pericope (and 3:28). Kartzow highlights three important insights: an intersectional approach opens up spaces for readers experiencing discrimination, this pericope is not gender inclusive as Hagar is marginalised, and the reference to Hagar draws attention to the claim in 3:28, encouraging discussions about ambiguous memories about marginalised women.

4.7 Speech act theory

Pieter Verster 114

(eds.), The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maarten J.J. Menken (Novum Testamentum Supplements 148, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill 2013), pp. 211–226. the Old Testament in Galatians”, in: B. Koet, S. Moyise and J. Verheyden https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004247727_015

(2007) uses speech act theory to distinguish between various types of non-authentic questions in Galatians. This makes it possible to describe the intended effect of each question more accurately. Verster classifies the question in v. 30 as an appeal.

5. Theological issues

5.1 Christology

In the light of ancient Jewish traditions, Paul Kim Sang Woo 115 78 M.A. Seifrid, “The Voice of the Law and the Children of Promise: Apostolic Hermeneutic in Galatians (Gal 4,21–31)”, in: M. Bauspieß, J.U. Beck and F. Portenhauser (eds.), Bestimmte Freiheit: Festschrift für Christof Landmesser zum 60. Geburtstag (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 64, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2020), pp. 57–80. (2018) highlights a Christological trajectory in this pericope. Vv. 28–31 implicitly offer a typology between Isaac and Christ and this trajectory is meant to re-establish the relationship of the recipients with the Risen Christ.

5.2 Pneumatology

Peter Dschulnigg 116 79 Op. cit., pp. 57–58. (2001) offers a detailed discussion of all 18 instances of the term “spirit” in Galatians. In the case of 3:14, 4:6, 29 and 5:5, Dschulnigg focuses on the way in which Paul further develops the notion of the Spirit in the letter in the light of the cross, promise, childhood of God and justification.

5.3 Israel, covenant and Abraham

Scott W. Hahn 117 80 K.B. Neutel, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Abraham as Universal Ancestor”, in: M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten and J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2010), pp. 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004216495_020 (2009) investigates the covenant in Scripture from a canonical perspective. With regard to Galatians 3 and 4, Hahn states: “Paul argues for the priority and primacy of the Abrahamic covenant — rather than the Mosaic — as the foundational covenant with Israel and ultimately with all mankind. … In contrast to the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant — at least as renewed after the golden calf and other rebellions — is secondary and subordinate in Paul’s eyes.” 118 81 U. Bechmann, “Rhetorische Figuren der Entgrenzung: Abraham, Sara und Hagar bei Paulus”, Bibel und Kirche 66:1 (2011), pp. 9–14. In a study of law and covenant in Pauline theology, Jason C. Meyer 119 82 J. Punt, “Hermeneutics in Identity Formation: Paul’s Use of Genesis in Galatians 4”, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 67:1 (2011), pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v67i1.846 (2009) contends that Paul regarded the Mosaic covenant as essentially non-eschatological, differing from the (eschatologically) new covenant. In Galatians 3–4, Paul highlights the fact that the Mosaic covenant was wrongly understood as still having a soteriological function after it was divinely terminated. Božidar Mrakovčić 120 83 M.C. de Boer, “Second Isaiah and Paul’s Eschatology in the Letter to the Galatians”, in: F. Postma, K. Spronk and E. Talstra (eds.), The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy: Festschrift for Henk Leene (Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese van de Bijbel en zijn Tradisies Supplement Series 3, Maastricht: Shaker Publishing, 2002), pp. 35–43. (2010) discusses Paul’s view of the covenant as found in 3:15–18 and in this pericope. Mrakovčić draws attention to the fact that Paul referred to the covenant as part of an argument defending his views on justification. His opponents regarded keeping the law a condition for participation in the covenant – something that was completely unacceptable to him. Bertram Schmitz 121 84 M.A. Camelo V, “La Nueva Alianza en Jeremías 31,31–34: Un Texto Enlace de la Relación entre los Dos Testamentos”, Cuestiones Teológicas 42:98 (2015), pp. 439–458. (2010) points out that the Sinai covenant, that Paul links to the Arabs via Hagar in this pericope, is taken up in the Koran, but that the Koran goes one step further in that it does not proclaim the law of the covenant generally. Instead, it proclaims the true law of God, surpassing the Sinai covenant. According to Albert L.A. Hogeterp 122 85 C.M. Maier, “Psalm 87 as a Reappraisal of the Zion Tradition and Its Reception in Galatians 4:26”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 69:3 (2007), pp. 473–486. (2010), the differentiation in the types of covenants that one finds in this pericope was not an invention of Paul’s since there was already a diversification of ideas on the covenant in Second Temple Judaism. However, the way in which Paul presents two types of covenants by means of an antithesis was specifically aimed at discrediting his opponents who derived their authority from Jerusalem. In a study of the “Israel problem”, Michael Wolter 123 86 D. Pérez-Gondar, “The New Jerusalem as a Mother: Intertextuality among Ps 87,5, Gal 4,26, and 4 Ezra 10,7–10”, Biblica 101:4 (2020), pp. 543–561. https://doi.org/10.2143/BIB.101.4.3289119 (2010) contends that there is no difference or any development in Paul’s views on this issue between this pericope and Romans 9–11. In both cases, the point is the same: Israel is far removed from Christ and does not play a role in the continuity of Abraham’s election. Wolter thus believes that Paul did not succeed in solving the “Israel problem”. M.C. Mulder 124 87 M.C. de Boer, “Paul’s Quotation of Isaiah 54.1 in Galatians 4.27”, New Testament Studies 50:3 (2004), pp. 370–389. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688504000219 (2013) argues that in spite of the opposition between believers and the present Jerusalem in this pericope, there is also a clear line of continuity between God’s saving actions in the lives of Sarah and in the time of the exile and the salvation of believers in Paul’s time. According to Donald Cobb 125 88 J.R. Wagner, “Isaiah in Romans and Galatians”, in: S. Moyise and M.J.J. Menken (eds.), Isaiah in the New Testament (The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel, London: T & T Clark Continuum, 2005), pp. 117–132. (2015), in Galatians 3 and 4, Paul does not react against the teaching of his opponents by merely opposing law and grace or law and faith as is often claimed. Rather, he reacts to an argument about the covenant by means of an argument about a different covenant. In another study, Cobb 126 89 A.D. Myers, “‘For It Has Been Written’: Paul’s Use of Isa 54:1 in Gal 4:27 in Light of Gal 3:1–5:1”, Perspectives in Religious Studies 37:3 (2010), pp. 295–308. (2016) investigates the use of the term διαθήκη (“covenant” or “will”) in Galatians 3–4 and points out its importance in Paul’s theology. The redemption that God offers in Christ was structured by the law and the promises of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and new covenants. Debbie Hunn 127 90 B. van Os, “Children of the Slave Woman: The Gnostic Christian Reinterpretation of Paul’s Allegory of Hagar”, in: M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten and J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions 13, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2010), pp. 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004188433.i-578.127 (2019) is of the opinion that Paul does not invert the story of Ishmael and Isaac in this pericope. It is rather an issue of separation. Paul separates the covenants of the law and the promise in order to convince the Galatians that they do not need both. Miguel G. Echevarria Jr. 128 91 D.I. Starling, Not My People: Gentiles as Exiles in Pauline Hermeneutics (Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 184, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), pp. 23–60. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110259612 (2019) discusses the notion of inheritance in Paul’s letters. In the case of Galatians, Echevarria argues that Paul uses the term “promise” to refer to the land promised to Abraham and his offspring but understands it as referring eschatologically to the entire world that still is to come and that his views in this regard thus differ from later Jewish views on the matter.

5.4 Law

Joel Marcus 129 92 D.I. Starling, “The Children of the Barren Woman: Galatians 4:27 and the Hermeneutics of Justification”, Journal for the Study of Paul and His (2001) is of the opinion that the expression “under the law” (v. 21) was first used by Paul’s opponents and that he adapted it and used it against them. In-Gyu Hong 130

3:1 (2013), pp. 93–109. Letters

(2002) interprets this expression as indicative of the enslaving power of the law causing a lack of freedom and an inability to determine one’s own life. Robert L. Brawley 131 93 M.S. Gignilliat, “Isaiah’s Offspring: Paul’s Isaiah 54:1 Quotation in Galatians 4:27”, Bulletin for Biblical Research 25:2 (2015), pp. 205–223. (2002) contends that Paul believed that without the Abrahamic covenant the Mosaic covenant equalled slavery. He thus synthesised the Mosaic and the Abrahamic covenants as is clear from his discussion of the law in 3:19–22 and the interplay between the allegory in 4:21–31 and Isaiah. Todd A. Wilson 132 94 S.G. Eastman, “‘Cast out the Slave Woman and Her Son’: The Dynamics of Exclusion and Inclusion in Galatians 4.30”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28:3 (2006), pp. 309–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X06063245 (2005) is of the opinion that Paul used the expression “under the law” (v. 21) as a rhetorical abbreviation for “under the curse of the law”. This implies that cursing plays a much more prominent role in Galatians than is generally recognised. According to Brian S. Rosner 133 95 L. Ossa, Das obere Jerusalem ist eine Freie: Demokratie und Urbanität im Galater-Brief (Europäische Hochschulschriften: Theologie 23.783, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2004). (2013), Paul continually does three things with the law in his letters: he repudiates, replaces and reappropriates it. This also happens in Galatians, in which case he repudiates it in 3:23–25 and 5:18, replaces it in 2:5, 14, 3:23–25, 5:18 and 6:2 and reappropriates it in 4:21–31 (as prophecy) and 5:14 (as wisdom). In a study of the expression “under the law” in the Pauline epistles (used in v. 21), James D.G. Dunn 134 96 B. Kahl, “Hagar between Genesis and Galatians: The Stony Road to Freedom”, in: C.A. Evans (ed.), From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 2004), pp. 219–232. (2013) points out that most of Paul’s fellow Jews might have regarded it a good position to find themselves in but that Paul had a different view. For him, it was similar to being “under the elements of the world” from which humankind had to be liberated in order to be “under grace” and be led by the Spirit.

5.5 Ecclesiology

According to Anna Maria Schwemer 135 97 Op. cit., p. 229. (2000), Paul’s brief references to the heavenly city (in vv. 24–26) and to heavenly citizenship (Philippians 4:30) form an integral part of his ecclesiology. These ideas represented shared knowledge amongst Christians (“urchristliches Gemeingut”) and therefore he did not need to elaborate. Furthermore, the polarity between Sinai and Zion is not only found in 4:21–31 but also in Hebrews 12:18–24. Günther H. Juncker 136 98 B. Kahl, “Krieg, Maskulinität und der imperiale Gottvater: Das Augustusforum und die messianische Re-Imagination von ‘Hagar’ im Galaterbrief”, in: U.E. Eisen, C. Gerber and A. Standhartinger (eds.), Doing Gender – Doing Religion: Fallstudien zur Intersektionalität im frühen Judentum, Christentum und Islam (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.302, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), pp. 273–300. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-152368-7 (2007) interprets “Israel” in Romans 9:6b as referring to the spiritual Israel (i.e., the church) and not to a faithful remnant from Israel. Juncker finds a similar tendency in Paul’s depiction of Abraham as spiritual father in Galatians 3, in the typological interpretations of the patriarchs in Galatians 3 and of Isaac and Ishmael in 4:21–31.

5.6 Christian existence and spirituality

In a study of the symbolism of mountains in Biblical spirituality, Richard T. France 137 99 B. Kahl, “Hagar’s Babylonian Captivity: A Roman Re-Imagination of Galatians 4:21–31”, Interpretation 68:3 (2014), pp. 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020964314529084 (2008) points out the contrasting ideologies associated with Sinai and Zion and the way in which this contrast is developed in the New Testament, amongst others in Galatians, in which case one finds a contrast between spiritual slavery and freedom in Christ. Chapter 15: Galatians 5:1/2–6 A variety of issues attracted the attention of scholars in this brief pericope, but the verses that received the most attention were vv. 1 and 6. They were approached from a variety of angles. The issues that received the most attention were the Wirkungsgeschichte of the pericope (or parts of it), soteriology and ethics.

1. Wirkungsgeschichte

Haringke Fugmann 1 100 R. Heinsch, “Is Sauce for the Goose, Sauce for the Gander? Evaluating Models and Methods in Galatians 4:21–31”, Canadian-American Theological Review 5:1 (2016), pp. 1–14. (2004) follows an inter-cultural approach by discussing the interpretation of Matthew 17:14–21 and Galatians 5:2–6 by pastors in Papua Guinea in an attempt to gain new insights for interpreting the two texts. For example, in the case of Galatians, Fugmann points out the importance of understanding the crisis reflected in the letter from the perspective of Paul’s opponents. Ian Christopher Levy 2 101 C.D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York NY/London: T & T Clark International, 2004). See also earlier: C.D. Stanley, “Biblical Quotations as Rhetorical Devices in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians”, in: Society of Biblical Literature: 1998 Seminar Papers: Part Two (Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Series 37, Atlanta GA: Scholars Press, 1998), pp. 700–730. (2008) discusses the important role that v. 6 played in medieval Galatians commentaries. It was perceived as the hermeneutical key that not only unlocked the letter but also unlocked the right way to Christian life. In the light of vv. 3 and 13, Burchell K. Taylor 3 102 M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Printing House, 2005). Updated version: M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Library of New Testament (2008) argues that freedom is both a gift and a demand. Although slave trade has officially been abolished, other unjust systems still impact negatively on the descendants of slaves and the church thus has to continue the fight for true freedom. Anthony Dupont 4

Argumentation in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9:2 (2007), pp. 99–120. Studies 344, London: T & T Clark, 2007). See also: M. Hietanen, “The https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52342

(2010) focuses on Augustine’s Sermon 168 and his interpretation of v. 6 in order to determine whether he handled the theme of gratia fidei in a similar way in his sermons preached during the Pelagian controversy and the systematic writings composed during the same time. Dupont answers this question in the affirmative. Pierre Deberge 5 103 See the 2007 version, p. 162. (2011) illustrates the way in which Simon Légasse understood the Pauline writings by discussing his interpretation of 2:16, 2:19–20 and 5:6b. According to Deberge, Légasse succeeded in combining exegetical rigour and theological depth in order to identify the contours of Christian living. One of the examples that James P. Byrd 6 104 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 (2013) selects to illustrate how American colonists used the Bible to justify the American Revolution is v. 1. Byrd shows how Paul’s call to liberty was used as a slogan and even rationale for political revolution, i.e., as claim of divine authority. Isabelle Bochet 7 105 J.A. Kelhoffer, “Suffering as Defense of Paul’s Apostolic Authority in Galatians and 2 Corinthians 11”, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 74 (2009), pp. 127–143. Also available in: J.A. Kelhoffer, Conceptions of “Gospel” and Legitimacy in Early Christianity (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.324, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), pp. 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-152993-1 (2014) traces the development in Augustine’s exposition of v. 6 from his commentary on Galatians up to his writings against Pelagius. The continuity in Augustine’s exegesis lies in the link he always maintained between faith and works, as well as in the notion that faith was also a gift of grace. Jennifer Slater 8 106 A. Pitta, “I Gradi della Mimesi nella Lettera ai Galati”, Liber Annuus 65 (2015), pp. 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.LA.4.000113 (2014) explains how what was theologically implicit in Paul’s call to freedom in v. 1 could be made explicit in South Africa, especially by countering corruption. Stephen J. Chester 9 107 A. Gignac, “Lorsque Paul ‘raconte’ Abraham, Agar et l’autre femme: Narrativité et intertextualité en Ga 4,21–5,1”, in: C. Focant and A. Wénin (eds.), Analyse narrative et Bible: Deuxième Colloque International (2014) investigates Luther’s and Calvin’s view of human deeds in their exegesis of v. 6. Chester shows that for them “faith” was the key term in understanding Galatians. Although they believed that deeds cannot justify, they still regarded deeds as integral to faith. Furthermore, they emphasised the sociological characteristics of love. Manuel Santos Noya 10

(Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses/Bibliotheca 191, Leuven: Peeters, 2005), pp. 463–480. du RRENAB, Louvain-la-Neuve, Avril 2004

(2017) points out that Luther did not follow the Greek text slavishly in his translation, since he believed that he had to convey the theological rather than the literal meaning. Most of the differences in Luther’s translation may thus be classified as stylistic divergences. In some cases, however, Luther modified the meaning of the texts. One of these examples comes from vv. 5–6. One of the examples that Daniel L. Dreisbach 11 108 C.T. Davis III, “The Evolution of a Pauline Toxic Text”, Pastoral Psychology 51:2 (2002), pp. 165–176. (2017) uses to illustrate the way in which the Bible was read by the “founding fathers” in the USA is v. 1. Dreisbach shows how this call to liberty was used and abused in the fight for political liberty. Kenneth P. Minkema, Adriaan C. Neele and Allen M. Stanton 12 109 J. Punt, “Revealing Rereading: Part 1: Pauline Allegory in Galatians 4:21–5:1” and “Part 2: Paul and the Wives of the Father of Faith in Galatians 4:21–5:1”, Neotestamentica 40:1 (2006), pp. 87–100; 101–118. (2019) published several sermons by Jonathan Edwards that had not been published before, on 2:17, 20, 3:13, 16, 5:6 and 17.

2. Interpretative approaches

2.1 Paul’s use of themes from the Hebrew Scriptures

Peter Cimala 13 110 J. Punt, “Writing Genealogies, Constructing Men: Masculinity and Lineage in the New Testament in Roman Times”, Neotestamentica 48:2 (2014), pp. 303–323. (2020) interprets v. 1 in the light of the new exodus motif found in the book Isaiah. Like Isaiah, Paul hoped for universal salvation, including both Jews and Gentiles. In this sense, he thus proclaimed a “new exodus”.

2.2 Rhetorical approaches

Mika Hietanen 14 111 R. Echevarría, “Una Re-Lectura de la Alegoría de Agar y Sara en Gálatas 4:21–31”, Teología y Cultura 13:18 (2016), pp. 25–36. (2005) offers a pragma-dialectical analysis of Galatians 3:1–5:12 and identifies one argument in vv. 1–12: that the Galatians should not be circumcised. Paul supports this argument in many different ways in this pericope. 15 112 M.J. Smith, “Hagar’s Children Still Ain’t Free: Paul’s Counterterror Rhetoric, Constructed Identity, Enslavement, and Galatians 3:28”, in: M.J. Smith and J.Y. Choi (eds.), Minoritized Women Reading Race and Ethnicity: Intersectional Approaches to Constructed Identity and Early Christian Texts (Lanham MD: Lexington Books, 2020), pp. 45–70. In a text-based rhetorical analysis of the letter, D. Francois Tolmie 16 113 M.B. Kartzow, “Towards an Intersectional Hermeneutics: Constructing Meaning with and Not of Galatians 3–4”, in: E.-M. Becker and K. Mtata (eds.), Pauline Hermeneutics: Exploring the “Power of the Gospel” (LWF Studies 2016/3, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2017), pp. 85–97. (2005) summarises Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope as a strict warning to the Galatians not to follow the advice of the opponents to be circumcised. Hung-Sik Choi 17 114 P. Verster, “The Implications of Non-Authentic Questions in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9 (2007), pp. 142–161. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52344 (2008) contends that vv. 2–12 form the climax of the letter, summarising all the previous parts of the letter and previewing what follows and that it should thus be taken as the hermeneutical key to the letter. David V. Urban 18 115 P.K. Sang Woo, Deux alliances: Sara et Agar: Trajectoire christologique en Ga 4,21–31 à la lumière des traditions juives anciennes (Séoul: Goodnews Publishing House, 2018). (2010) discusses the ways in which Paul uses a rhetoric of rebuke to shape the ethos of his readers. Four instances of rebuke in the letter are investigated by means an Aristotelian analysis and by linking it to Jeremiah, one of which is vv. 2–12 (the others are 1:6–7; 3:1–5 and 4:8–11). David A. deSilva 19 116 P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: J. Eckert, M. Schmidl and H. Steichele (eds.), Pneuma und Gemeinde: Christsein in der Tradition des Paulus und Johannes: Festschrift für Josef Hainz zum 65. Geburtstag (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2001), pp. 15–32. Also available in: P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: B. Kowalski, R. Höffner and J. Verheyden (eds.), Studien zu Einleitungsfragen und zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Gesammelte Aufsätze von Peter Dschulnigg (Biblical Tools and Studies 9, Leuven/Paris/Walpole MA: Peeters, 2010), pp. 355–370. (2016) explains Paul’s rhetorical strategy in vv. 1–12 by identifying three typical forms of appeal found in most oratory – logos, pathos and ethos – in the pericope. In vv. 1–6, Paul primarily uses logos (supported by ethos and pathos) and in vv. 7–12, he primarily uses ethos (supported by pathos).

2.3 Literary analysis

Carlos Raúl Sosa Siliezar 20 117 S.W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises (Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library, New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2009). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvs32tbq (2012) offers a literary analysis of vv. 1–6, highlighting significant semantic aspects in the pericope and the relationships between the different verses. An inclusion between vv. 1 and 5–6 is discussed, an ellipsis in v. 6 is identified and several semantic parallels in vv. 2–4 are pointed out.

3. Theological issues

3.1 Gospel

On the basis of vv. 2–6, Hung-Sik Choi 21 118 Op. cit., p. 276. (2003) summarises Paul’s view of “the truth of the gospel” as follows: “[T]he truth of Paul’s gospel in Galatians is an announcement about God’s (past, present, and future) salvation (especially justification) of humanity (Jews and the Gentiles) not in and through the law, but in and through Christ and by pistis and the Spirit.” 22 119 J.C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (NAC Studies in Bible & Theology 6, Nashville TN: Broadman & Holman, 2009), pp. 116–176.

3.2 Pneumatology

Peter Dschulnigg 23 120 B. Mrakovčić, “Savez u Poslanici Galaćanima”, Bogoslovska Motra 80:1 (2010), pp. 275–296. (2001) offers a detailed discussion of all 18 instances of the term “spirit” in Galatians. In the case of 3:14, 4:6, 29 and 5:5, Dschulnigg focuses on the way in which Paul further develops the notion of the Spirit in the letter in the light of the cross, promise, childhood of God and justification.

3.3 Law

On the basis of vv. 2–4, Daniel H. Fletcher 24 121 B. Schmitz, Paulus und der Koran (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), pp. 150–151. (2016) describes the opponents’ view of the law as “retrograde redemptive history”. They did not realise that Christ’s death inaugurated a new era characterised by his faithfulness and instead opted for a form of token obedience to the law.

3.4 Soteriology

According to Patrick Mulemi 25 122 A.L.A. Hogeterp, “Hagar and Paul’s Covenant Thought”, in: M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten and J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2010), pp. 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004216495_023 (2003), 2:15–16 and 5:5–6 do not contradict each other. Both indicate that justification comes through faith and not through the law. Works are to be performed in faith working through love. Hung-Sik Choi 26 123 M. Wolter, “Das Israelproblem nach Gal 4,21–31 und Röm 9–11”, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 107:1 (2010), pp. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1628/004435410790844557 (2005) points out that scholars tend to overlook the value of vv. 5–6 for the “faith of Christ” debate and argues that the term “faith” in vv. 5 and 6 refers to Christ’s faithfulness and not to believers’ faith in him. John A. Davies 27 124 M.C. Mulder, “Kinderen naar de Ordening van Izak: Continuïteit van Gods Verbond Belicht door een Intertextuele Exegese van Galaten 3 en 4”, Theologia Reformata 56:2 (2013), pp. 103–118. (2012) discusses the three instances in which Paul writes that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything (Galatians 5:6, 6:15 and 1 Corinthians 7:19). Davies believes that although Paul’s indication of what does count differs in each case (faith made effective by love, new creation and obedience of God’s commandments) the dominant factor in all the passages is an emphasis on Christ’s role and believers’ identification with him. Monte A. Shanks 28 125 D. Cobb, “Galates 3–4: Une alliance ni abrogée ni modifiée”, La Revue Réformée 275 (2015), pp. 1–30. (2012) emphasises the importance of taking the context of vv. 2–4 into account when interpreting it. If this is done, one realises that Paul addresses Gentiles who are looking for justification by the law and that he thus argues that true believers should not seek additional forms of justification after having received Christ. Norbert Jacoby 29 126 D.E. Cobb, “What Paul Says About the Covenants in Galatians 3–4”, Unio cum Christo 2:2 (2016), pp. 173–194. https://doi.org/10.35285/ucc2.2.2016.art10 (2014) criticises the one-dimensional way in which scholars interpret the relationship between faith and love in v. 6 in that they intuitively accept that Paul had a single-cause view (“Ein-Ursachen-Lehre”) of events. Jacoby offers a different view. One should rather distinguish between two causes: a content-eidetic cause (“inhaltlich-eidetische ἀρχή”) – faith in Christ’s giving of himself (“Hingabeglauben”) – and a second closely related material-hyletic cause (“materiell-hyletische ἀρχή) – love. According to this verse, the two work closely together. Debbie Hunn 30 127 D. Hunn, “The Hagar-Sarah Allegory: Two Covenants, Two Destinies”, Biblica 100:1 (2019), pp. 117–134. https://doi.org/10.2143/bib.100.1.3286053 (2016) is of the opinion that vv. 5–6, two verses that are usually neglected in the “faith of Christ” debate, provide the following two pieces of evidence in support of interpreting “faith” as referring to human faith: (1) By contrasting faith and law in this pericope, Paul picks up the same contrast that one finds earlier in Chapters 2 and 3 (where faith refers to human faith); (2) In vv. 5–6, Paul refers to faith working though love, thus implying that he refers to human faith.

3.5 Ethics

In a study on the moral-practical relevance of the doctrine of justification, Marcus Hüttner 31 128 M.G. Echevarria Jr., The Future Inheritance of Land in the Pauline Epistles (Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, 2019), pp. 104–140. (2004) takes the importance of the concept “freedom” (in 5:1) as a cue. The fact that a gracious God gives justification to people as a gift implies that faith enables them to live a humane way of life, motivated by the power of God’s liberating and encouraging love. Thomas Söding 32 129 J. Marcus, “‘Under the Law’: The Background of a Pauline Expression”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63:1 (2001), pp. 72–83. (2008) takes v. 1 as point of departure to contrast Paul’s view of liberty and current views of liberty. In Christ, people are liberated from sin and death. They are also liberated to love. Söding furthermore compares Paul’s view on free will and the way in which Stoics interpreted free will. Wayne Coppins 33 130 I.-G. Hong, “Being ‘under the Law’ in Galatians”, Evangelical Review of Theology 26:4 (2002), pp. 354–372. (2009) offers an interpretation of freedom as conceptualised in Paul’s letters. In the case of Galatians, rather than describing the content of this freedom as freedom from the law, Coppins argues that a more comprehensive type of freedom is in view in texts such as 2:4, 5:1, 13, namely a freedom from the elements of the world. According to Ladislav Tichý 34 131 R.L. Brawley, “Contextuality, Intertextuality, and the Hendiadic Relationship of Promise and Law in Galatians”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 93:1–2 (2002), pp. 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1515/zntw.2002.010 (2010), when Paul refers to “freedom” in Galatians, he primarily has freedom from “the works of the law” in mind. Furthermore, he also stresses the positive side of freedom in Christ. Freedom should be manifested by loving service to other people. In a study of Paul’s charismatic imperatives, Robby J. Kagarise 35 132 T.A. Wilson, “‘Under Law’ in Galatians: A Pauline Theological Abbreviation”, Journal of Theological Studies 56:2 (2005), pp. 362–392. (2014) also considers verse 5. Kagarise is of the opinion that Paul has the charismatic aspect of the Spirit’s work in mind here. This means that Paul’s reference to faith in this verse should not be restricted to a different self-perception. It also refers to believers embracing and participating in the power of the Spirit. Christopher M. Tuckett 36

https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/fli108

(2015) draws attention to Paul’s diverse use of traditions – a situation that might incline one to think that some of his statements lack coherence. However, Tuckett suggests that there is some coherence to be found in this diversity if one realises that there is an underlying principle guiding Paul’s choices, namely the notion of (spiritual) freedom for other people (v. 1). Simon Butticaz 37 133 B.S. Rosner, Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 31, Downers Grove IL/Nottingham: IVP Academic, 2013). (2017) takes v. 6 as point of departure for discussing the relationship between justification by faith and rewarding/punishment at the last judgement in Galatians and argues that the theological and ethical arguments in the letter form an organic whole in that individuals justified without the law will appear before the Lord as judge and are thus called upon to practise a corresponsive ethos that is inclusive and reciprocal. Nina E. Livesey 38 134 J.D.G. Dunn, “‘Under the Law’”, in: J. Krans, B.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, P.-B. Smit and A.W. Zwiep (eds.), Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer (Novum Testamentum Supplements 149, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2013), pp. 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004250369_005 (2019) agrees with the classicist Matthew Roller that ἐλευθερία (“freedom”) was never an existential category in ancient discourse but rather used for characterising a different situation. Livesey applies this insight to v. 1, arguing that Paul used the term as a metaphor for a different position that he wished the Galatians to adopt, namely “Paul’s position, or the no-Torah, no-circumcision position”. 39 135 A.M. Schwemer, “Himmlische Stadt und himmlisches Bürgerrecht bei Paulus (Gal 4,26 und Phil 3,20)”, in: M. Hengel, S. Mittmann and A.M. Schwemer (eds.), La Cité de Dieu/Die Stadt Gottes: 3. Symposium Strasbourg, Tübingen, Uppsala. 19.–23. September 1998 in Tübingen (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.129, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), pp. 195–243. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157217-3 František Ábel 40 136 G.H. Juncker, “‘Children of Promise’: Spiritual Paternity and Patriarch Typology in Galatians and Romans”, Bulletin for Biblical Research 17:1 (2007), pp. 131–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/26424196 (2019) points out that our interpretation of freedom in Galatians has been influenced greatly by Luther’s interpretation of it as freedom from the law and instead approaches the concept from the perspective of the sociocultural dynamics in the first century CE. Because of their acceptance of the gospel, the Galatians acquired a new identity, freedom in Christ. In three articles, Marinki Vidović 41 137 R.T. France, “A Tale of Two Mountains: Mountains in Biblical Spirituality”, Rural Theology 6:2 (2008), pp. 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1179/rut_2008_6_2_005 (2020) explains Paul’s statement in v. 1 that Christ has set us free for freedom step by step: 1. Paul’s statement should be interpreted against the historical background of the letter and the dilemma that Paul faced when the Galatian churches turned to the law; 2. Paul interpreted freedom as freedom from the law. According to him, the history of salvation did not begin with the law but with Abraham’s faith, which was based on God’s promise; 3. Freedom was a spiritual state of non-slavery based on God’s promise and not on the flesh. This freedom should constantly be maintained by believers. Céline Rohmer 42 1 H. Fugmann, Berge versetzen: Interkulturelle Hermeneutik von Mt 17,14–21 und Gal 5,2–6 in Papua-Neuguinea (Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel, Münster: LIT Verlag, 2004). (2020) draws attention to the aesthetic dimension of Galatians, arguing that in the three instances in the letter where Paul refers to “the good”, a Pauline aesthetics also becomes visible. Paul not only views the truth of the gospel as an event of liberation; he also points out the beauty of the divine transformation at work. In 4:12–20, he describes beauty as a creative gesture of God, and in 5:1–13, he focuses on the usefulness of beauty for a free existence and in 6:1–10, he stresses that the good depends on beauty. Chapter 16: Galatians 5:7–12 Scholars addressed a variety of issues in this brief pericope.

1. Introductory issues

1.1 Paul’s opponents in Galatia

Karl Olav Sandnes 1 2 I.C. Levy, “Fides quae per caritatem operatur: Love as the Hermeneutical Key in Medieval Galatians Commentaries”, Cistercian Studies Quarterly 43:1 (2008), pp. 41–61. (2018) uses mirror-reading to determine what Paul’s opponents objected to with regard to his view of the law and why they did so. Sandnes identifies three embedded dictas in Galatians, reflecting the views of the opponents of which one comes from v. 11: Paul would eventually realise that the Abraham story that he based his views on included circumcision. (The other two are found in 2:17 and 3:21.) On the basis of an investigation of v. 11 (and 6:12–13), Woo-Kyung Lee 2 3 B.K. Taylor, “Abolished, but Not Destroyed: Freedom – Gift and Demand (Gal 5.2,13)”, Reformed World 58:1 (2008), pp. 30–35. (2020) concludes that Paul followed a strict form of Judaism/zealotism before his conversion and that he was later persecuted by Jewish Christians with similar beliefs. They tried to persuade the Galatians to be circumcised in order to avoid persecution by other Jews.

1.2 Historical events underlying Galatians

Douglas A. Campbell 3 4 A. Dupont, “Fides as donum Dei in Augustine’s Sermones ad Populum: Sermo 168 and Gal. 5,6 as Case Studies”, Sacris Erudiri 49 (2010), pp. 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.SE.1.102054 (2011) interprets v. 11 as an indication that Paul was still committed to circumcision in the first part of his apostolic career and that the transition to a gospel without circumcision only occurred at a later stage. Justin K. Hardin 4 5 P. Debergé, “Le père Simon Légasse: Quand rigueur exégétique et profondeur théologique, à la suite de Paul, dessinent les contours de la vie chrètienne”, Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique 112:1 (2011), pp. 5–16. (2013) and Jan Lambrecht 5 6 J.P. Byrd, Sacred Scripture, Sacred War: The Bible and the American Revolution (New York NY/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 116–142. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199843497.001.0001 (2017) disagree with Campbell. Richard Fellows 6 7 I. Bochet, “Fides quae per dilectionem operatur: L’originalité de l’exégèse Augustinienne de Galates 5,6”, in: I. Bochet and M. Fedou (eds.), L’exégèse patristique de l’Épître aux Galates (Collection des Études Augustiniennes: Série Antiquité 197, Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2014), pp. 155–180. (2018) believes that v. 11 is an indication that Paul circumcised Timothy in Galatia and that his opponents in Galatia used this as an argument to support their views that circumcision was necessary and that Paul only rejected circumcision because he was subservient to the church leaders in Judea who had decided that Gentile believers did not have to be circumcised.

1.3 Background

James R. Edwards 7 8 J. Slater, “Freedom: The Liberative Value and Ethical Credential for Christian Living in South Africa”, Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 148 (2014), pp. 48–64 . (2011) reads v. 12 against the cult of the Mother Goddess that was widespread in Galatia and Phrygia. From this perspective it is clear that Paul depicted those promoting circumcision in the Christian congregations as just as offensive as the priests of this cult who were emasculated. W. Marshall Johnston 8 9 S.J. Chester, “Faith Working through Love (Galatians 5:6): The Role of Human Deeds in Salvation in Luther and Calvin’s Exegesis”, The Covenant Quarterly 72:3/4 (2014), pp. 41–54. (2015) is also of the opinion that this verse should be understood in the light of the Mother Goddess cult and draws attention to the story of Attis who castrated himself for her. Paul is thus referring to castration in this verse. Christoph Heil 9 10 M. Santos Noya, “The Theological Significance of Luther’s Modifications to the Greek and Latin Texts of the Pauline Letters”, Concilium 2017:2 (2017), pp. 47–55. (2016) is of the opinion that the interpretation of rituals in Early Christianity was influenced by notions of piety in the mystery cults. In Galatians, this can be seen in Paul’s reference to circumcision as castration (v. 12), having as its background the emasculation associated with the Cybele cult, and the clothing referred to in the context of baptism (3:27), having as its background clothing metaphors in Hellenistic mystery cults.

2. Syntactical, stylistic and translation issues

Three scholars made contributions on the athletic metaphor in v. 7: According to Uta Poplutz 10 11 D.L. Dreisbach, Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers (New York NY: Oxford University Press, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199987931.001.0001 (2004), Paul uses sport metaphors such as v. 7 (and 2:2) in his letters to draw attention to what he wishes to emphasise, the gospel. In an investigation of Paul’s use of athletic metaphors, Victor C. Pfitzner 11 12 K.P. Minkema, A.C. Neele and A.M. Stanton (eds.), Sermons by Jonathan Edwards on the Epistle to the Galatians (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2019). (2013) considers examples from Galatians (in v. 7 and 2:2). According to Pfitzner, Paul’s agonistic metaphors were grounded both in his knowledge of athletics in his time and the philosophical tradition according to which such metaphors were used to discuss virtue. Daniel T. Durbin 12 13 P. Cimala, “‘Do Not Submit Again to a Yoke of Slavery’: Liberation in Christ as a ‘New Exodus’ in Paul’s Letter to Galatians”, in: J. Roskovec and V. Hušek (eds.), Interactions in Interpetation: The Pilgrimage of Meaning through Biblical Texts and Contexts (Biblical Interpretation Series 185, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2020), pp. 168–191. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004439825_012 (2020) explores notions of sports in Plato, Aristotle and Paul. In the case of the Pauline letters, Paul’s use of athletic imagery in this verse and in 2:2 and 5:7 is discussed. According to Durbin, Paul uses two athletic proofs to frame his argument in this letter. Such a use of appeals to athletics made sense in epideictic rhetoric and would have been easily grasped by his audience. Three other studies should be noted in this subsection: Konstantin Nikolakopoulos 13 14 M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Printing House, 2005). Updated version: M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Library of New Testament Studies 344, London: T & T Clark, 2007). See also: M. Hietanen, “The Argumentation in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9:2 (2007), pp. 99–120. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52342 (2001) considers rhetorical irony in Galatians by examining three instances in the letter, v. 12 in this pericope (as well as in 1:6 and 2:6) in which irony plays an important role. Nikolakopoulos also points out the effectiveness of irony for achieving Paul’s didactic-pedagogic purpose in the letter. C. Kingsley Barrett 14 15 See the 2007 version, p. 171. (2007) discusses various attempts to interpret v. 11 and suggests that one should take the second clause (τί ἔτι διώκομαι; “why am I still being persecuted?”) not as the apodosis of the conditional sentence but rather as a parenthesis. The third clause thus serves as the apodosis: if Paul still preached circumcision, the offense of the cross has been removed. D. Francois Tolmie 15 16 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 (2009) considers various interpretations and the rhetorical labelling of v. 12 and classifies it as an instance of sarcasm, used to express Paul’s bitter feelings towards his opponents. Tolmie proposes the following translation for this verse: “I wish that those who upset you, would even have everything cut off!”

3. Interpretative approaches

3.1 Social-scientific/sociological approaches

Kathy Ehrensperger 16 17 H.-S. Choi, “The Rhetorical Function of Galatians 5:2–6”, Torch Trinity Journal 11:1 (2008), pp. 104–116. (2019) approaches v. 12 from the perspective of identity formation, raising the question of whether differentiation necessarily implies separation. Ehrensperger interprets this verse as referring to separation and not castration. Paul wishes that the influence of his opponents would come to an end so that the identity formation of the Galatian believers can continue. Such a wish still leaves the possibility of reconciliation, implying that differentiation does not necessarily cause separation.

3.2 Rhetorical approaches

Mika Hietanen 17 18 D.V. Urban, “The Rhetoric of Rebuke and Community-Shaping in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: An Aristotelian Analysis, with Jeremiah as an Alternative Interpretive Rubric”, Scandinavian Evangelical E-Journal for New Testament Studies 1 (2010), pp. 28–42. (2005) offers a pragma-dialectical analysis of 3:1–5:12 and identifies one argument in vv. 1–12: that the Galatians should not be circumcised. Paul supports this argument in many different ways in this pericope. 18 19 D.A. deSilva, “Appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos in Galatians 5:1–12: An Investigation of Paul’s inventio”, in: S.E. Porter and B.R. Dyer (eds.), Paul and Ancient Rhetoric: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), pp. 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139683647.014 In a text-based rhetorical analysis of the letter, D. Francois Tolmie 19 20 C.R. Sosa Siliezar, “Análisis Literario y Exegético de Gálatas 5:1–6”, DavarLogos 11:1 (2012), pp. 57–79. (2005) summarises Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope as vilification of his opponents, an effect that is achieved in various ways. Hung-Sik Choi 20 21 H.-S. Choi, “‘The Truth of the Gospel’ in Galatians”, 한국기독교신학논총 29 (2003), pp. 71–94. (2008) believes that vv. 2–12 form the climax of the letter, summarising all the previous parts of the letter and previewing what follows, and that it should thus be taken as the hermeneutical key to the letter. David V. Urban 21 22 Op. cit., p. 83. (2010) discusses the ways in which Paul uses a rhetoric of rebuke to shape the ethos of his readers. Four instances of rebuke in the letter are investigated by means an Aristotelian analysis and by linking it to Jeremiah, one of which is vv. 2–12 (the others are 1:6–7; 3:1–5 and 4:8–11). David A. deSilva 22 23 P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: J. Eckert, M. Schmidl and H. Steichele (eds.), Pneuma und Gemeinde: Christsein in der Tradition des Paulus und Johannes: Festschrift für Josef Hainz zum 65. Geburtstag (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2001), pp. 15–32. Also available in: P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: B. Kowalski, R. Höffner and J. Verheyden (eds.), Studien zu Einleitungsfragen und zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Gesammelte Aufsätze von Peter Dschulnigg (Biblical Tools and Studies 9, Leuven/Paris/Walpole MA: Peeters, 2010), pp. 355–370. (2016) explains Paul’s rhetorical strategy in vv. 1–12 by identifying three typical forms of appeal found in most oratory – logos, pathos and ethos – in the pericope. In vv. 1–6, Paul primarily uses logos (supported by ethos and pathos) and in vv. 7–12, he primarily uses ethos (supported by pathos).

3.3 Speech act theory

Pieter Verster 23 24 D.H. Fletcher, “Retrograde Redemptive History: The Law in Galatians 5:2–4”, Restoration Quarterly 58:1 (2016), pp. 23–38. (2007) uses speech act theory to distinguish between various types of non-authentic questions in Galatians. This makes it possible to describe the intended effect of each question more accurately. Verster classifies the questions in this pericope as follows: v. 7 is a statement negative and v. 11 is an appeal, not self-inquiring, but a rhetorical interrogative.

4. Theological issues

4.1 Gospel

Assisi Saldanha 24 25 P. Mulemi, “A Synopsis of the Pauline Theology on Justification: Galatians 2:15–16 and 5:5–6”, Hekima Review 30 (2003), pp. 61–67. (2011) points out that Paul’s reference to the cross as a stumbling block in v. 11 depicts Christian identity in terms of an either-or and that he explicitly rejects circumcision as important for Christian identity. Saldanha also appropriates this notion for current believers. Taking v. 12 as point of departure, J. Cornelis de Vos 25 26 H.-S. Choi, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ in Galatians 5:5–6: Neglected Evidence for the Faithfulness of Christ”, Journal of Biblical Literature 124:3 (2005), pp. 467–490. https://doi.org/10.2307/30041035 (2017) argues that Paul opposes both Jewish and Anatolian cultural elements, thus creating a third option. Paul replaces symbols such as emasculation and circumcision by baptism: “He substitutes the tangible signs of affiliation, and therewith of a certain security, by a spiritual life that is oriented toward the eschaton. The certainty lies in hope”. 26 27 J.A. Davies, “What Does Count?”, The Reformed Theological Review 71:2 (2012), pp. 77–89.

4.2 Ethics

One of the examples that Jeremy F. Hultin 27 28 M.A. Shanks, “Galatians 5:2–4 in Light of the Doctrine of Justification”, Bibliotheca Sacra 169 (2012), pp. 188–202. (2008) considers in a book on the ethics of obscene speech in Early Christianity and its environment comes from v. 12. According to Hultin, Paul’s statement was sharp but should not be categorised as an example of obscene speech. Céline Rohmer 28 29 N. Jacoby, “pístis di’ agápēs energouménē (Gal 5,6b): Versuch einer Interpretation”, Theologie und Philosophie 89:3 (2014), pp. 407–418. (2020) draws attention to the aesthetic dimension of Galatians, arguing that in the three instances in the letter where Paul refers to “the good”, a Pauline aesthetics also becomes visible. Paul not only views the truth of the gospel as an event of liberation, he also points out the beauty of the divine transformation at work: in 4:12–20, he describes beauty as a creative gesture of God; in 5:1–13, he focuses on the usefulness of beauty for a free existence and in 6:1–10, he stresses that the good depends on beauty. Chapter 17: Galatians 5:13–6:10 The issues that received the most attention from scholars in the research on this pericope were its Wirkungsgeschichte, the depiction of the law and ethics.

1. Introductory issues

1.1 Opponents

Todd A. Wilson 1 30 D. Hunn, “πίστις in Galatians 5.5–6: Neglected Evidence for ‘Faith in Christ’”, New Testament Studies 62:3 (2016), pp. 477–483. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688516000096 (2007) believes that the “agitators” (as Wilson calls them) warned the Galatians that they would be cursed by God if they were not circumcised. In contrast, Paul argued that fulfilment of “the law of Christ” (6:2) was necessary, by loving one another in the Spirit and bearing the burdens of others.

1.2 Background

Craig A. Evans 2 31 M. Hüttner, Zur Freiheit befreit (Gal 5,1): Die moralisch-praktische Relevanz der Rechtfertigungslehre (Bamberger Theologische Studien 25, Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2004). (2008) lists over 200 parallels between Paul’s letters and non-Jewish sources. Seventeen verses/sections from Galatians are mentioned. Furthermore, Evans discusses several other aspects that are relevant for this letter, one of which is ἐγκράτεια (“self-control”) in v. 22. (The others are the running [2:2] and the pedagogue metaphors [3:24–25]). James W. Thompson 3 32 T. Söding, “Zur Freiheit befreit (Gal 5,1): Paulus und die Kritik der Autonomie”, Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift/Communio 37:2 (2008), pp. 92–112. (2011) analyses the way in which Paul formed his congregations in a moral sense. One of the sections that Thompson investigates is the virtue and vice list in 5:19–23. According to Thompson, Paul’s approach to moral formation was analogous to what happened in moral instruction in Hellenistic Judaism. František Ábel 4 33 W. Coppins, The Interpretation of Freedom in the Letters of Paul: With Special Reference to the “German” Tradition (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.261, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151604-7 (2016) investigates the Psalms of Solomon as background for understanding what is called “Paul’s messianic ethics”. Ábel outlines a common Messianic ethics based on the notions of mercy and merit in Pauline theology (amongst others, in this pericope) and the Psalms of Solomon, with Paul’s views on justice and mercy being integrated by the concept of obedience (linked to faith in the crucified and resurrected Messiah). According to Matthew P. van Zile 5 34 L. Tichý, “‘Svoboda’ v Listu Galaťanům”, Studia Theologica 4 (2010), pp. 1–16. (2017), one can distinguish between two traditions regarding the eschatological fate of the nations, both going back to the same proto-rabbinic source. The tradition underlying Paul’s thought (for example, in 5:19–20) differs from that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic Judaism. Craig S. Keener 6 35 R.J. Kagarise, Paul’s Charismatic Imperatives (Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 43, Dorset: Deo Publishing, 2014), pp. 126–129. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004397194 (2017) compares the items in Paul’s virtue list in 5:22–23 with their use by other intellectuals of his time, in particular the Stoics. Keener concludes: “Like many other moral teachers, Paul made use of lists of vices and virtues. For Paul in Gal 5, however, these virtues reflect God’s indwelling character rather than studied compliance with an external code.” 7 36 C.M. Tuckett, “‘For Freedom Christ Has Set Us Free’ (Gal 5,1): Freedom and Constraints in Paul’s Hermeneutics and Ethics”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 91:4 (2015), pp. 547–567. https://doi.org/10.2143/ETL.91.4.3129668 Kyu Seop Kim 8 37 S. Butticaz, “‘La foi agissant par l’amour’ (Galates 5,6): Justification par la foi et parénèse du jugement dans la Lettre aux Galates”, Biblica 98:1 (2017), pp. 91–111. https://doi.org/10.2143/BIB.98.1.3197387 (2019) interprets the notion of freedom in v. 13 against the practice of manumission in Roman society. For Paul freedom did not imply autonomy, since certain relationships had to be continued. This helps one to make sense of the paradox between freedom and slavery in this verse. Bruce W. Longenecker 9 38 N.E. Livesey, “Is Freedom an Existential Category in Ancient Discourse?”, Biblical Interpretation 27:2 (2019), pp. 274–297. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685152-00272p06 (2019) is of the opinion that Early Christianity practised benefaction but that it differed from similar practices in that era in terms of form, the motivation for it, its resources and the people who benefitted from it. From 6:10 and 1 Thessalonians 5:15, it is clear that Paul expected believers to practise benefaction to support other believers but also to benefit other people.

2. Linguistic, semantic and translational issues

Moisés Silva 10 39 Op. cit., p. 296. (2001) points out that some exegetes are of the opinion that there is a difference in meaning between βάρος and φορτίον (both translated as “burden”) in 6:2 and 6:5 but disagrees with such a view. Mario Cifrak 11 40 F. Ábel, “Freedom in Christ in Galatians: A Matter of Identity”, Communio Viatorum 61:3 (2019), pp. 235–255. (2005) offers the following solution for the hypotactic problem in 5:17: The final clause (ἵνα μὴ ταῦτα ποιῆτε; “so that you do not do the things”) depends on the hypothetical relative clause (ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε; “what you want”). Paul thus warns the Galatians against returning to slavery to the elements of the world, i.e., being under the law. According to Troy W. Martin 12 41 M. Vidović, “‘Za Slobodu Nas Krist Oslobodi’ (Gal 5,1) – Poimanje Slobode u Poslanici Galaćanima (I: Sintagma u Povijesnom Kontekstu Poslanice i Kristološke Vjere)”, Nova Prisutnost 18:1 (2020), pp. 115–126, https://doi.org/10.31192/np.18.1.9 , M. Vidović, “‘Za Slobodu Nas Krist Oslobodi’ (Gal 5,1) – Poimanje Slobode u Poslanici Galaćanima (II: Sloboda kao Sloboda od Zakona)”, Nova Prisutnost 18:2 (2020), pp. 397–407, https://doi.org/10.31192/np.18.2.11 , M. Vidović, “‘Za Slobodu nas Krist Oslobodi’ (Gal 5,1) – Poimanje Slobode u Poslanici Galaćanima (III: Sloboda kao Status Ne-Robovanja i Afirmativno Opredjeljenje Za)”, Nova Prisutnost 18:3 (2020), pp. 625–640. https://doi.org/10.31192/np.18.3.13 (2002), the term “brothers” in 4:28 and 5:13a should not be read as a vocative, but rather as a nominative. This helps one to grasp Paul’s strategy in Galatians as trying to foster unity between Jewish and non-Jewish believers on the basis of the freedom that they have in Christ. Timothy Ashworth 13 42 C. Rohmer, “Du deutéro-Élian à l’Élian historique: Relecture d’une course belle”, Études Théologiques et Religieuses 95:3 (2020), pp. 531–541. https://doi.org/10.3917/etr.953.0531 (2010) proposes that στοιχέω (5:25 and 6:16) and στοιχεῖα (4:3, 9), usually translated as “walk” and “elemental spirits/principles” respectively, should rather be translated as “keeping aligned with” (in the sense of “keeping aligned in the footsteps of”) and “things that keep aligned behaviour/give directions for behaviour”. Aaron Michael Jensen 14 1 K.O. Sandnes, Paul Perceived: An Interactionist Perspective on Paul and the Law (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.412, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), pp. 55–91. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-156102-3 (2018) argues against the scholarly consensus that μὴ ἐκλυόμενοι (“not giving up”) in 6:9 should be understood in a conditional sense. Instead, Jensen argues that is best understood as indicating manner, thus expressing the notion that believers should serve ceaselessly because this reflects the nature of the ceaseless eschatological harvest. After a discussion of the grammar of v. 13 and an exegetical analysis of it, Jan Lambrecht 15 2 W.-K. Lee, “Paul, His Opponents, and Their Persecutors: A Study Based on Galatians 5:11, 6:12–13”, 신학논단 101 (2020), pp. 209–246. https://doi.org/10.17301/tf.2020.09.101.209 (2019) offers the following literal translation of the verse: “For you were called to freedoms, brother; only take care that you do not make that freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another”.

3. Wirkungsgeschichte

Taking Hans Dieter Betz’s interpretation of 5:17 as point of departure, John K. Riches 16 3 D.A. Campbell, “Galatians 5.11: Evidence of an Early Law-Observant Mission by Paul?”, New Testament Studies 57:3 (2011), pp. 325–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868851100004X (2001) investigates the way in which John Chrysostom and Luther interpreted it. Riches concludes that the task of Biblical interpreters is no longer to offer a single normative interpretation of Biblical texts but to uncover the diverse interpretations that are possible. Michael McGhee 17 4 J.K. Hardin, “‘If I Still Proclaim Circumcision’ (Galatians 5:11a): Paul, the Law, and Gentile Circumcision”, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 3:2 (2013), pp. 145–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/jstudpaullett.3.2.0145 (2002) argues that finding commonalities between different religions may be deceptive. Although 6:10 and a passage from the Buddhist Mahavagga may sound the same, one should rather look at how things are understood and practised. Without this perspective interfaith dialogue will remain shallow. Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony and Aryeh Kofsky 18 5 J. Lambrecht, In Search of Meaning: Collected Notes on the New Testament (2014–2017) (Balti: Scholars’ Press, 2017), pp. 472–476. (2006) discuss the monastic school that existed at Gaza from the fourth to the seventh century CE. One of the issues that is highlighted is the way in which 6:2 was interpreted in this community. A monk’s spiritual father could participate actively in a monk’s penance by assuming responsibility for the sin that the monk had committed. In turn, the monk had to vow to be totally obedient to his spiritual father. Basil S. Davis 19 6 R. Fellows, “Paul, Timothy, Jerusalem and the Confusion in Galatia”, Biblica 99:4 (2018), pp. 544–566. https://doi.org/10.2143/bib.99.4.3285663 (2007) draws attention to Severianus of Gabala’s interpretation of 6:6, a verse difficult to link to the rest of the letter. According to Severianus, in this verse, Paul asked the Galatians to stop supporting those who encouraged them to keep the law and rather support those who were proclaiming his view of the law. He used 6:7–8 to motivate Paul’s request. Davis then develops Severianus’s interpretation further (and somewhat differently). In the light of 5:2 and 13, Burchell K. Taylor 20 7 J.R. Edwards, “Galatians 5:12: Circumcision, the Mother Goddess, and the Scandal of the Cross”, Novum Testamentum 53:4 (2011), pp. 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853611X578275 (2008) argues that freedom is both a gift and a demand. Although the slave trade has been abolished, other unjust systems still impact negatively on the descendants of slaves and the church thus has to continue the fight for true freedom. Kyung-Sik Hyun 21 8 W.M. Johnston, “Pagans and Galatians: Reading Galatians 5:12”, in: W.M. Johnston and D.J. Crosby (eds.), A Dangerous Mind: The Ideas and Influence of Delbert L. Wiens (Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015), pp. 117‑128. (2009) is of the opinion that the gospel was inculturated in Galatia by means of the ethical behaviour of believers, behaviour characterised by equality, love and freedom. Hyun appropriates this as follows for missionaries currently in Asia: They should have consensus on what the gospel entails and try to foster a culture characterised by equality, love and freedom. In an overview of the way in which Paul was interpreted by Johannes Bugenhagen in order to substantiate the importance of care for the poor in the sixteenth century, Kurt K. Hendel 22 9 C. Heil, “Beschneidung und Taufe im Galaterbrief: Zur Bedeutung der Mysterienkulte in einem frühchristlichen Grundsatzstreit”, Keryx 4 (2016), pp. 87–98. (2009) refers to several texts from the Pauline corpus that Bugenhagen regarded as important for this purpose. In the case of Galatians, 2:10 and 6:10 are highlighted. James O. Adeyanju 23 10 U. Poplutz, Athlet des Evangeliums: Eine motivgeschichtliche Studie zur Wettkampfmetaphorik bei Paulus (Herders Biblische Studien, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2004). (2010) explains how Nigerian churches can play a role in the rebranding of Nigeria by taking the view of spirituality expressed in 5:16–18 seriously. This would help to turn around socio-economic and political problems in the country. Debora Shuger 24 11 V.C. Pfitzner, “Was St. Paul a Sports Enthusiast? Realism and Rhetoric in Pauline Athletic Metaphors”, in: N.J. Watson and A. Parker (eds.), Sports and Christianity: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (Routledge Research in Sport, Culture and Society, New York NY/London: Routledge, 2013), pp. 89–111. (2012) edited a collection of primary sources from Early Stuart England, reflecting the variety in religion, theology and spirituality during this period. This book contains a sermon of John Hales on 6:7 (ca. 1619–38, published in 1660) in which Hales defends rationalism, individualism and egalitarianism. Marshall Welch 25 12 D.T. Durbin, “From Plato to St. Paul: Ancient Sport as Performative Public Discourse”, Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 47:3 (2020), pp. 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2020.1811108 (2013) developed a curriculum based on 5:22–23 for developing Christian men spiritually. It was tested in practical situations and it was found that it can be used successfully by pastoral staff and lay leaders. Simeon Zahl 26 13 K. Nikolakopoulos, “Aspekte der ‘paulinischen Ironie’ am Beispiel des Galaterbriefes”, Biblische Zeitschrift 45:2 (2001), pp. 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1163/25890468-04502003 (2014) discusses Augustine’s interpretation of 5:16–25 and in particular the way in which he viewed the relationship between divine and human agency. According to Zahl, Augustine’s views can help one to understand this passage better because of the affective anthropology that can be seen here, as well the link that Augustine made between divine and human agency and ethics. Felix H. Cortez 27 14 C.K. Barrett, “The Interpretation of Galatians 5,11”, in: J.E. Aguilar Chiu, F. Manzi, F. Urso and C.Z. Estrada (eds.), “Il Verbo di Dio è Vivo”: Studi sul Nuovo Testamento in Onore del Cardinale Albert Vanhoye, S.I. (Analecta Biblica 165, Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2007), pp. 315–321. (2015) addresses the mission-dilemma in Seventh-day Adventism by discussing Paul’s views on the poor, as may be seen in texts such as 2:10 and 6:10. Paul regarded caring for the poor as an essential part of the gospel with no contradiction between mission and social relief. Minggus Dilla 28 15 D.F. Tolmie, “The Interpretation and Translation of Galatians 5:12”, Acta Theologica 29:2 (2009), pp. 86–102. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v29i2.55446 (2015) regards “the fruit of the Spirit” (5:22–23) as the most important aspect in the lives of believers and explains what this entails practically in the daily lives of believers. Jacobus de Koning 29 16 K. Ehrensperger, “Trouble in Galatia: What Should Be Cut? (On Gal 5:12)”, in: F. Ábel (ed.), The Message of Paul the Apostle within Second Temple Judaism (Lanham MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2019), pp. 179–194. (2017) identifies 6:2 as the guideline for Christian ethics in the new dispensation. According to this verse, the law is replaced by the crucified Christ. De Koning also works out the implications of this insight for believers in South Africa. Claire Walker 30 17 M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Printing House, 2005). Updated version: M. Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Gal. 3.1–5.12 (Library of New Testament Studies 344, London: T & T Clark, 2007). See also: M. Hietanen, “The Argumentation in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9:2 (2007), pp. 99–120. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52342 (2017) explains how Rev. Samuel Wesley used a rhetoric of shame in a sermon on 6:1 preached at two occasions (1719 and 1725) in order to admonish a parishioner as well as the rest of the parish for immorality. However, apparently Wesley did not practise what he preached, since by the time of the second preaching of the sermon he and the rest of his family had not forgiven his own daughter who had eloped and returned to the family. Didier Méhu 31 18 See the 2007 version, p. 171. (2018) discusses the dialectics between aedificatio and dedicatio in Homily 163 of Augustine, a homily based on 5:16 in which the process of salvation and the construction of a church is compared. Kartini Hutagaol 32 19 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 (2018) illustrates how faith-based learning along the lines of 5:22–23 can work practically in the teaching of mathematics. By means of such an approach the characters of students can be formed for the present and eternal life. Anton M. ten Kooster 33 20 H.-S. Choi, “The Rhetorical Function of Galatians 5:2–6”, Torch Trinity Journal 11:1 (2008), pp. 104–116. (2019) clarifies the role that “the fruit of the Spirit” played in Aquinas’s theology by looking at Aristotle’s views on pleasure. For Aquinas, “the fruit of the Spirit” was like pleasure to Aristotle. It was the delight coming from actions focusing on union with God, whereas for Aristotle, pleasure was caused by actions focusing on natural happiness. Cynthia M. Montaudon-Tomas 34 21 D.V. Urban, “The Rhetoric of Rebuke and Community-Shaping in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: An Aristotelian Analysis, with Jeremiah as an Alternative Interpretive Rubric”, Scandinavian Evangelical E-Journal for New Testament Studies 1 (2010), pp. 28–42. (2019) explains how organisations may avoid spiritual bankruptcy by fostering an organisational spirituality based on Biblical values and Christian values such as “the fruit of the Spirit” (5:22–23). Based on an empirical study Debra J. Dean 35 22 D.A. deSilva, “Appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos in Galatians 5:1–12: An Investigation of Paul’s inventio”, in: S.E. Porter and B.R. Dyer (eds.), Paul and Ancient Rhetoric: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), pp. 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139683647.014 (2019) argues that the nine “fruits” of the Spirit (5:22–23) are beneficial for organisations, since they enhance engagement of employees, satisfaction with one’s job, commitment to the organisation and organisational spirituality. Kenneth P. Minkema, Adriaan C. Neele and Allen M. Stanton 36 23 P. Verster, “The Implications of Non-Authentic Questions in Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 9 (2007), pp. 157–158. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v28i2.52344 (2019) published several sermons by Jonathan Edwards that had not been published before. One of them is based on a verse from this pericope: 5:17. Bruce E. Winston 37 24 A. Saldanha, “Letting the Cross Remain a Stumbling Block! An Analysis of Galatians 5:11”, Indian Theological Studies 48:2 (2011), pp. 123–148. (2019) highlights guidelines from 6:1–10 illustrating how important it is that employees help one another, but argues also that this should only happen to the point that they should not help others too much since this may cause their own failure. In three studies of the views of evangelical Christian college students, Diana R. Rice 38 25 J.C. de Vos, “‘I Wish Those Who Unsettle You Would Mutilate Themselves!’ (Gal 5:12): Circumcision and Emasculation in the Letter (2020) found that they consistently regarded “the fruit of the Spirit” as a primarily feminine characteristic. Rice also discusses the implications this has for gender stereotyping. Marlin E. Blaine 39

(eds.), Jewish Cultural Encounters in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern World (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 178, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2017), pp. 201–217. to the Galatians”, in: M. Popović, M. Schoonover and M. Vandenberghe https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004336919_014

(2020) explains how Shakespeare brutally ironises the relationship between spirit, lust and will that is depicted in 5:16–26 in Sonnet 129. Tomasz Kopiczko 40 26 Op. cit., p. 216. (2020) discusses “the fruit of the Spirit” (5:22–23) in the light of catechetical documents. Kopiczko emphasises the role of the Spirit and that “the fruit of the Spirit” is a characteristic of a mature faith. The task of catechesis is to help believers discover the gifts of the Spirit.

4. Interpretative approaches

4.1 Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures

William N. Wilder 41 27 J.F. Hultin, The Ethics of Obscene Speech in Early Christianity and Its Environment (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 128, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2008), pp. 148–150. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004168039.i-279 (2001) believes that 5:18 indicates that Paul understood Christian experience as a new exodus. Furthermore, Psalm 143 served as the source of Paul’s ideas in this regard, for both Paul’s views of the new exodus and the flesh-Spirit contrast in this part of the letter. Todd A. Wilson 42 28 C. Rohmer, “Du deutéro-Élian à l’Élian historique: Relecture d’une course belle”, Études Théologiques et Religieuses 95:3 (2020), pp. 531–541. https://doi.org/10.3917/etr.953.0531 (2004) claims that Paul uses the theme of Israel’s wilderness apostasy in Galatians. The Galatians are thus depicted as on the verge of a wilderness apostasy, somewhere between redemption (as happened in Exodus) and inheriting the kingdom of God. One of the passages in which Wilson finds this notion is 5:13–26. According to G.K. Beale 43 1 T.A. Wilson, The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia: Reassessing the Purpose of Galatians (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.225, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157075-9 (2005), the notion of “the fruit of the Spirit” (5:22) is an allusion to promises in Isaiah (especially in Chapters 32 and 57) about the abundant fertility characteristic of the new age, brought about by the Spirit. Moisés Silva 44 2 C.A. Evans, “Paul and the Pagans”, in: S.E. Porter (ed.), Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman (Pauline Studies 5, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2008), pp. 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004171596.i-370.49 (2007) discusses two allusions and all the quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in Galatians. In this pericope, Silva discusses the quotation of Leviticus 5:19 in 5:24. Silva points out that Paul’s use of the text is straightforward. Some scholars are baffled by the fact that he calls for the law to be fulfilled, since he argues elsewhere in the letter against the law. However, their surprise might be wrongly based on the notion that Paul attacks the law indiscriminately in the letter. According to Maureen W. Yeung 45 3 J.W. Thompson, Moral Formation According to Paul: The Context and Coherence of Pauline Ethics (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2011). (2011), the paradox inherent in the expression “the law of Christ” (6:2) (as well as in “the seed of Abraham” [3:16, 29] and “the Israel of God” [6:16]) is a genuine paradox. It was already implicit in the Hebrew Scriptures and Paul merely developed it within his missionary context. Michael K.W. Suh 46 4 F. Ábel, The Psalms of Solomon and the Messianic Ethics of Paul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.416, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-153992-3 (2012) proposes that Paul’s quotation of Leviticus 19:18 in 5:14 resonates with the larger context of this chapter in Leviticus. Leviticus 19 connects the commandments to the Lord himself, and, similarly, in this verse, Jesus’ identity is described in a way parallel to that of the Lord in Leviticus. Dan Batovici 47 5 M.P. van Zile, “The Sons of Noah and the Sons of Abraham: The Origins of Noahide Law”, Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 48:3 (2017), pp. 386–417. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700631-12340151 (2013) discusses the function of references to the Hebrew Scriptures in Galatians. In the instance of 5:14, Batovici highlights the fact that freedom is not mentioned in Leviticus and that the verse from Leviticus is both an authoritative source and a guideline to be followed. Todd A. Wilson 48 6 C.S. Keener, “A Comparison of the Fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22–23 with Ancient Thought on Ethics and Emotion”, in: L.F. Dow, C.A. Evans and A.W. Pitts (eds.), The Language and Literature of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Stanley E. Porter’s 60th Birthday (Biblical Interpretation Series 150, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill Academic Publishers, 2017), pp. 574–598. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004335936_026 (2017) illustrates intertextual exegesis by identifying echoes of the exodus narrative in 5:16–23 related to the wilderness theme, such as the guidance of the Spirit (echoing the guidance of Israel by a cloud) and “the fruit of the Spirit” (echoing the prophetic hopes of the fruitfulness of Israel. Scott A. Swanson 49 7 Op. cit., p. 593. (2018) is of the opinion that Psalm 143:10 lies behind Paul’s exhortations to walk by the Spirit and be led by the Spirit (5:16, 18 and Romans 8:14). This presupposes a wisdom framework that one has to take seriously in order to understand this facet of Paul’s instruction on the Spirit properly. In a study of the reception of Leviticus 19:18 in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, the Book of Jubilees, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, Kengo Akiyama 50 8 K.S. Kim, “The Freedom and the Enslavement in Galatians 5:13 in Light of the Roman Social and Legal Context”, 신약연구 18:4 (2019), pp. 574–607. https://doi.org/10.24229/kents.2019.18.4.006 (2018) points out that according to 5:13–15, Paul regarded this text as the key command that made it possible for believers to do what the law had been requiring from the outset.

4.2 Social-scientific approaches

Bernard O. Ukwuegbu 51 9 B.W. Longenecker, “‘Do Good to All’ (Galatians 6.10): Assets, Capital, and Benefaction in Early Christianity”, in: S. Walton and H. Swithinbank (2008) offers an interpretation of this pericope in terms of social identity theory. The normative prescriptions in this part of the letter form the climax of the letter and were meant to foster group identity between Jewish and Gentile members of the congregation.

4.3 Rhetorical approaches

Susanne Schewe 52

Poverty in the Early Church and Today: A Conversation (London/New York NY: Bloomsbury/T & T Clark, 2019), pp. 43–53. (eds.),

(2005) applies a text-pragmatical approach to 5:13–6:10. By means of a close reading of the text, Schewe attempts to show that this part of the letter is an integral part and even the climax of Paul’s argument. In a text-based rhetorical analysis of the letter, D. Francois Tolmie 53 10 M. Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2001 [1996], 2nd edition), pp. 56–57. (2005) summarises Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope as urging the Galatians to have their lives directed by the Spirit. Paul tries to achieve this by means of several commands, exhortations, warnings and promises.

4.4 Performance criticism

Bernhard Oestreich 54 11 M. Cifrak, “‘Da Ne Činite To Što Budete Htjeli.’ (Gal 5,17)”, Bogoslovska Smotra 74:3 (2005), pp. 635–651. (2012) illustrates the use of performance criticism for interpreting the Pauline letters – an approach taking seriously the fact that the letters were read aloud to the recipients in his congregations – by discussing examples from several Pauline letters. In the case of Galatians, one of the issues that receives attention is the strategies that Paul uses to win back the Galatians. One of the passages that Oestreich discusses is 6:1–10 (as well as 4:13–20 and 6:17).

5. Theological issues

5.1 Christology

Joshua W. Jipp 55 12 T.W. Martin, “The Brother Body: Addressing and Describing the Galatians and the Agitators as ἀδελφοί”, Biblical Research 47 (2002), pp. 5–18. (2015) is of the opinion that Paul creatively adapted the notion of Mediterranean kingship in his Christology. In Galatians, this can be seen in the way in which Jesus’ teaching and legislation is depicted in 5:13–6:10, in particular in the demand to love one’s neighbour.

5.2 Pneumatology

Peter Dschulnigg 56 13 T. Ashworth, “Spirit-Led Freedom: Examining a Significant Detail in Galatians”, Scripture Bulletin (Online) 40:2 (2010), pp. 75–87. (2001) offers a detailed discussion of all 18 instances of the term “spirit” in Galatians. In the case of 5:16–18, 22 and 25, Dschulnigg focuses on the way in which Paul depicts the Spirit as the moving force behind ethical behaviour. This pericope is one of the passages that Robby J. Kagarise 57 14 A.M. Jensen, “ΜΗ ΕΚΛΥΟΜΕΝΟΙ in Galatians 6:9”, Tyndale Bulletin 69:1 (2018), pp. 97–110. (2014) investigates in a study of Paul’s charismatic imperatives. In this instance, Kagarise argues that Paul still thinks of the Spirit as a charismatic power and that this influences the way in which he portrays the agency of the Spirit and of believers in this pericope. Scott A. Swanson 58 15 J. Lambrecht, In Search of Meaning III: More Notes on the New Testament (2018–2019) (Beau Bassin: Scholars’ Press, 2019), pp. 341–344. (2018) is of the opinion that Psalm 143:10 lies behind Paul’s exhortations to walk by the Spirit and be led by the Spirit (5:16, 18 and Romans 8:14). This presupposes a wisdom framework that one has to take seriously in order to understand this facet of Paul’s instruction on the Spirit properly.

5.3 Anthropology

Peter Dschulnigg 59 16 J.K. Riches, “Theological Interpretation of the New Testament and the History of Religions: Some Reflections in the Light of Galatians 5:17”, in: A.Y. Collins and M.M. Mitchell (eds.), Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), pp. 245–262. (2001) offers a detailed discussion of all 18 instances of the term “spirit” in Galatians. In the case of 6:1 and 18, Dschulnigg focuses on Paul’s use of the term in an anthropological sense. Hermut Löhr 60 17 M. McGhee, “Editorial: Greeks, Galatians and Western Buddhists: Christianity, Buddhism, and ‘Social Responsibility’”, Contemporary Buddhism: An Interdisciplinary Journal 3:2 (2002), pp. 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639940208573760 (2007) discusses Paul’s notion of the human will, as expressed in 5:13–6:10 and Romans 6:1–8:17. Löhr is of the view that Paul developed a notion of the relative freedom of the human will, which was situated within a broader theological framework focusing on God’s actions. In an investigation of 5:13–27 and Romans 7:7–24, Troels Engberg-Pedersen 61 18 B. Bitton-Ashkelony and A. Kofsky, The Monastic School of Gaza (Vigiliae Christianae Supplements 78, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2006), pp. 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047408444_009 (2011) finds a Stoically-informed idea of personhood in Paul, for both believers and non-believers: “In Paul, a human ‘person’ is a being who is self-reflectively capable of turning one’s own gaze on one’s own body in order to change it. In the unredeemed ‘person’ the gaze will not always be successful. In the redeemed ‘person,’ by contrast, it is able genuinely to transform the body.” 62 19 B.S. Davis, “Severianus of Gabala and Galatians 6:6–10”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 69:2 (2007), pp. 292–301. In another contribution, Engberg-Pedersen 63 20 B.K. Taylor, “Abolished, but Not Destroyed: Freedom – Gift and Demand (Gal 5.2,13)”, Reformed World 58:1 (2008), pp. 30–35. (2013) discusses the movement from sin to virtue in 5:13–26 from two perspectives: the characteristics of sin and how Paul views the movement from sin to virtue (“the fruit of the Spirit”). In the discussion, Engberg-Pedersen points out similarities between Paul’s views and Stoic and Aristotelian views. In a discussion of the “I” referred to in Romans 7, Jean-Noël Aletti 64 21 K.-S. Hyun, “Inculturation of the Gospel in Galatians”, 한국기독교신학논총 63 (2009), pp. 57–76. (2012) argues against scholars interpreting it as referring to believers. Aletti also contends that it is wrong to use Galatians 5:17 to support such an interpretation. Marek Kozák 65 22 K.K. Hendel, “Paul and the Care of the Poor During the Sixteenth Century: A Case Study”, in: R.W. Holder (ed.), A Companion to Paul in the Reformation (Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 15, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2009), pp. 541–571. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004174924.i-660.103 (2017) focuses on the anthropology of 5:16–26 and Romans 7:7–14, claiming that the pericope in Galatians describes the inner struggle of believers, whereas the pericope in Romans refers to this type of struggle in humans in general. In a study of the flesh-Spirit antithesis in Romans and Galatians, Brian H. Thomas 66 23 J.O. Adeyanju, “Christian Spirituality, Depicted in Galatians 5:16–18, as a Tool for Rebranding in Nigeria”, African Journal of Biblical Studies 28:1 (2010), pp. 84–101. (2020) argues that the “overlap of ages” scheme generally accepted by Pauline scholars to explain this antithesis is not adequate. Thomas proposes a tripartite salvation-historical schema: SH-yesterday (time in the flesh), SH-now (time in the Spirit before the parousia) and SH-soon (time after Christ’s return).

5.4 Law

Claude Pigeon 67 24 D. Shuger (ed.), Religion in Early Stuart England, 1603–1638: An Anthology of Primary Sources (Documents of Anglophone Christianity, Baylor TX: Baylor University Press, 2012), pp. 843–850. (2000) identifies three different ways in which the expression “the law of Christ” in 6:2 has been interpreted by scholars: the reinterpretation of the Mosaic law by Jesus Christ, a concept used by Paul’s opponents, and a reference to the commandment of love. Pigeon opts for interpreting it as a reference to mutual support, thus manifesting the love emanating from the Christian community, a commandment addressed to all members. Michael Winger 68 25 M. Welch, “Man-ifestation of the Spirit: An Investigation on the Impact of a Curriculum and Small Group Spiritual Direction on the Spiritual Formation of Protestant Men”, Pastoral Psychology 62:1 (2013), pp. 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-012-0449-9 (2000) believes that the expression “the law of Christ” does not refer to any legal instruction. It is rather a metaphor denoting the lordship of Christ over believers which, practically speaking, implies that their lives are taken over by the Spirit. Joel Marcus 69 26 S. Zahl, “The Drama of Agency: Affective Augustinianism and Galatians”, in: M.W. Elliott, S.J. Hafemann, N.T. Wright and J. Frederick (eds.), Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 335–352. (2001) is of the opinion that the expression “under the law” (5:18) was first used by Paul’s opponents and that he adapted it and used it against them. In-Gyu Hong 70 27 F.H. Cortez, “The Mission-Charity Dilemma: Fresh Perspectives from Paul’s Practice”, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 26:1 (2015), pp. 160–173. (2002) interprets the expression “under the law” as indicative of the enslaving power of the law causing a lack of freedom and an inability to determine one’s own life. In a study of Paul’s use of the term “law” plus the genitive, J. Louis Martyn 71 28 M. Dilla, “Makna Buah Roh dalam Galatia 5:22–23”, Manna Rafflesia 1:2 (2015), pp. 158–166. https://doi.org/10.38091/man_raf.v1i2.51 (2003) also discusses the expression “the law of Christ”. According to Martyn, “Paul coins that expression in order to speak of the Law as it has been taken in hand by Christ, thus being delivered from its lethal alliance with Sin and made pertinent to the church’s daily life.” 72 29 J. de Koning, “Die Riglyn vir Christen Etiek: Galasiërs 6:2 onder die Loep”, In die Skriflig 51:1 (2017), pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v51i1.2205 In a chapter on the expression “the law of Christ”, Graham Stanton 73 30 C. Walker, “Governing Bodies, Family and Society: The Rhetoric of the Passions in the Sermons of Samuel Wesley”, English Studies 98:7 (2017), pp. 733–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2017.1384228 (2004) investigates several interpretations of the expression over time. Stanton opts for understanding it as referring to the Mosaic law as it was interpreted by Christ, having as its essence the love commandment and a willingness to carry the burdens of others. Todd A. Wilson 74 31 D. Méhu, “La dialectique aedificatio-dedicatio dans l’oeuvre d’Augustin d’Hippone: À propos du sermon 163”, Laval Théologique et Philosophique 74:2 (2018), pp. 181–191. https://doi.org/10.7202/1058092ar (2005) is of the opinion that Paul used the expression “under the law” (5:18) as a rhetorical abbreviation for “under the curse of the law”. This implies that cursing plays a much more prominent role in Galatians than is generally recognised. In another contribution, Wilson 75 32 K. Hutagaol, “Pendekatan Faith Learning dalam Pembelajaran Matematika”, Jurnal Padegogik 1:2 (2018), pp. 32–47. https://doi.org/10.35974/jpd.v1i2.655 (2006) offers an overview of the shift in the way in which the expression “the law of Christ” is interpreted. Formerly scholars tended to take it as referring to something replacing the Mosaic law, but now more and more scholars prefer to link it directly to the Mosaic law. Wilson also points out the implications of this development. According to Femi Adeyemi 76 33 A.M. ten Klooster, “Aquinas on the Fruits of the Holy Spirit as the Delight of the Christian Life”, Journal of Moral Theology 8: Special Issue 2 (2019), pp. 80–94. (2006), the law that Jeremiah refers to in Jeremiah 33:33 should be identified with “the law of Christ” that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 9:21 and Galatians 6:2. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor 77 34 C.M. Montaudon-Tomas, “Avoiding Spiritual Bankruptcy in Organizations through the Fruit of the Spirit”, Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership 9:1 (2019), pp. 17–34. (2012) interprets the expression “the law of Christ” as meaning “the law which is Christ”, which makes sense if one keeps Philo’s notion of a person as “a living law” (a notion going back to ideas related to Hellenistic kingship) in mind. In a study of the expression “under the law” in the Pauline epistles (used in 5:18), James D.G. Dunn 78 35 D.J. Dean, “Integration of Christian Values in the Workplace”, Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership 9:1 (2019), pp. 35–55. (2013) points out that most of Paul’s fellow Jews might have regarded it a good position to find themselves in, but that Paul had a different view. For him, it was similar to being “under the elements of the world” from which humankind had to be liberated in order to be “under grace” and be led by the Spirit. Francesco Bianchini 79 36 K.P. Minkema, A.C. Neele and A.M. Stanton (eds.), Sermons by Jonathan Edwards on the Epistle to the Galatians (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2019). (2013) detects a coherent development in Paul’s references to the law in this pericope (5:14, 23 and 6:2) culminating in 6:2 where Paul claims that believers do not need the law of Moses anymore, since they have “the law of Christ” and are guided by the Spirit. According to Brian S. Rosner 80 37 B.E. Winston, Biblical Principles of Being an Employee in Contemporary Organizations (Christian Faith Perspectives in Leadership and Business, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019), pp. 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11169-4_4 (2013), Paul continually does three things with the law in his letters: he repudiates, replaces and reappropriates it. This also happens in Galatians, in which case he repudiates it in 3:23–25 and 5:18, replaces it in 2:5, 14, 3:23–25, 5:18 and 6:2 and reappropriates it in 4:21–31 (as prophecy) and 5:14 (as wisdom). Ho Hyung Cho 81 38 D.R. Rice, “Against Such Things There Is No Law: Evangelical College Students’ Perceptions of the Fruit of the Spirit as Primarily Gendered”, Journal of Psychology and Theology 49:1 (2020), pp. 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091647120907984 (2015) interprets the expression “the law of Christ” in 6:2 as referring to a principle created by Christ and not to any written laws, such as the Mosaic law or any other written law. In another study, Cho 82 39 M.E. Blaine, “Lust, Spirit, and the Vice List in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 129 and Galatians 5”, Ben Jonson Journal 27:2 (2020), pp. 234–246. https://doi.org/10.3366/bjj.2020.0286 (2019) offers an overview of the meaning of the expression “the law of Christ” in 6:2, Barnabas 2:6 and Ignatius’s Letter to the Magnesians and comes to the same conclusion. It refers to the principal characteristic of the new era that Christ inaugurated. Arland J. Hultgren 83 40 T. Kopiczko, “Biblijne owoce Ducha Świętego (Ga 5,22–23) na Drodze do Dojrzałej Wiary w Katechezie”, Verbum Vitae 37:1 (2020), pp. 257–270. https://doi.org/10.31743/W.4816 (2019) understands “the law of Christ” as the guidance that believers in Christ experience because they are led by the Spirit. Accordingly, their actions are directed by the love commandment so that they serve one another.

5.5 Ecclesiology

In a study of Paul’s letters as letters of worship, John Paul Heil 84 41 W.N. Wilder, Echoes of the Exodus Narrative in the Context and Background of Galatians 5:18 (Studies in Biblical Literature 23, New York NY/Bern: Lang, 2001). (2011) highlights the following aspects of ritual worship in the letter: worship in the letter opening (1:1–5), the link between the eucharist and worship in the Antioch incident (2:11–21), the effect of baptism on ethical worship (3:26–29, worked out in 4:1–11 and 5:16–6:10), and worship in the letter closing (6:11–18).

5.6 Ethics

James L. Boyce (2000) 85 42 T.A. Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy and Paul’s Portrayal of the Crisis in Galatians”, New Testament Studies 50:4 (2004), pp. 550–571. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688504000311 See also Wilson’s 2017 publication discussed later on in this section. stresses the link between ethical guidelines in Chapters 5 and 6 and the theological argument in the previous parts of the letter. In Galatians, theology and ethics are thus inextricably linked. According to Bertram L. Melbourne 86 43 G.K. Beale, “The Old Testament Background of Paul’s Reference to ‘the Fruit of the Spirit’ in Galatians 5:22”, Bulletin for Biblical Research 15:1 (2005), pp. 1–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/26422749 (2002), the vices and virtues in 5:19–23 do not represent a random selection from Hellenistic sources but are arranged in an orderly way as follows: vices linked to the individual, the divine and other people, and virtues linked to the divine, other people and the individual. James P. Sweeney 87 44 M. Silva, “Galatians”, in: G. Beale and D. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2007), pp. 785–810. (2003) draws attention to Paul’s statement on spiritual restoration in 6:1, emphasising two issues: that Paul assumes that the Galatian believers already possess the Spirit but that they are still vulnerable to temptation and thus have a pastoral responsibility towards each other. Otto Hofius 88 45 M.W. Yeung, “Old Testament Paradoxes in Galatians: Rethinking the Theology of Galatians”, in: J.C. Laansma, G.R. Osborne and R.F. van Neste (eds.), New Testament Theology in Light of the Church’s Mission: Essays in Honor of I. Howard Marshall (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2011), pp. 213–228. (2003) disagrees with scholars who interpret 5:17 as indicating a constant battle between the Spirit and the flesh in the lives of believers. Hofius thinks that believers still experience temptation but are expected not to succumb to it – something they will achieve if they do not restrict the Spirit. Larry W. Hurtado 89 46 M.K.W. Suh, “‘It Has Been Brought to Completion’: Leviticus 19:18 as Christological Witness in Galatians 5:14”, Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 2:2 (2012), pp. 115–132. (2004) draws attention to the ways in which New Testament writers depict Jesus’ death as paradigmatic and as criterion for the daily life of believers. In Galatians, Hurtado discusses 2:19–20, 5:24–25 and 6:13–14 and 17. Álvaro Michelín Salomón 90 47 D. Batovici, “A Few Notes on the Use of the Scripture in Galatians”, Sacra Scripta: Journal of the Centre for Biblical Studies 11:2 (2013), pp. 287‑301. (2004) draws attention to the importance of the ethical guidelines in 5:22–23 for believers in our time: Paul does not distinguish between ecclesial and secular life. Everything must be a manifestation of Christ and the Spirit. Gys M.H. Loubser 91 48 T.A. Wilson, “Scripting and the Rhetoric of Wilderness in Galatians”, in: T.A. Wilson and P.R. House (eds.), The Crucified Apostle: Essays on Peter and Paul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.450, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), pp. 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-155610-4 (2005) points out that scholars quite often pass over Galatians as an important source for Paul’s conception of Christian freedom, since they regard it as a contingent letter. Loubser thus highlights the important ways in which Paul uses apocalyptic in the letter to get the idea across that a totally new era has arrived in Christ, characterised by liberty and by the activity of the Spirit that produces the spiritual fruit that the law cannot bring about. Matthias Konradt 92 49 S.A. Swanson, “The Instruction of the Spirit: The Wisdom Framework for Pauline Spirit Dependence”, Mid-America Journal of Theology 29 (2018), pp. 81–128. (2005) summarises the ethical section in the letter (5:13–6:10) as “Die Christonomie der Freiheit” (“the Christonomy of freedom”) and discusses the characteristics of freedom in Christ as referred to in the letter, the relationship between freedom and mutual service through the power of the Spirit and the pragmatic function of 5:13–6:10. Paul’s ethics thus has a pneumatological-soteriological basis. Peter Mageto 93 50 K. Akiyama, The Love of Neighbor in Ancient Judaism: The Reception of Leviticus 19:18 in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, the Book of Jubilees, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the New Testament (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 105, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004366886 (2006) highlights the ethics of shared responsibility underlying 5:13–15 and points out the implication for churches in our time as follows: Paul’s ethics provides one with a model for Christian unity where different groups can be enriched by other groups. D. Francois Tolmie 94 51 B.O. Ukwuegbu, “Paraenesis, Identity-Defining Norms, or Both? Galatians 5:13–6:10 in the Light of Social Identity Theory”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70:3 (2008), pp. 538–559. (2006) provides a lengthy list of various types of positive and negative behaviour mentioned in Galatians before investigating the theological background of identity and ethics presupposed by the letter. The effect of God’s salvation is described as spiritual liberation and the ethics underlying the letter is summarised in terms of three concepts: spiritual freedom, love and the Spirit. Gys H.M. Loubser published two contributions in which the role of the Spirit is stressed. In the first one, published in 2006 95 52 S. Schewe, Die Galater zurückgewinnen: Paulinische Strategien in Galater 5 und 6 (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen , Loubser points out that, according to Galatians, believers receive the Spirit by faith in Christ. The Spirit guides them to do the will of God according to the faithfulness of Christ. Such an ethics is thus Christological-pneumatological and anomistic but not libertinistic. In the second one, published in 2009 96

Testament 208, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005). https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666530722

, Loubser stresses that, according to Galatians, ethical behaviour is not determined by the law but generated by Christ’s faithfulness that is introduced in the lives of believers through the indwelling of the Spirit. Accordingly, their behaviour is characterised by love and service to others. James A. Kelhoffer 97 53 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 189–219. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 (2007) responds critically to the remarks of William V. Harris 98 54 B. Oestreich, Performanzkritik der Paulusbriefe (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.296, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-152280-2 English version: B. Oestreich, Performance Criticism of the Pauline Letters (Biblical Performance Criticism Series 14, Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2016). about management of anger in the Pauline letters. Amongst others, Kelhoffer refers to 5:20. On the basis of 6:10, Kjetil Fretheim 99 55 J.W. Jipp, Christ Is King: Paul’s Royal Ideology (Minneapolis MN: Fortress, 2015). (2008) argues that one should view Christian ethics as a communitarian type of ethics and that it should be guided by a preference for poor people. Wayne Coppins 100 56 P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: J. Eckert, M. Schmidl and H. (2009) offers an interpretation of freedom as conceptualised in Paul’s letters. In the case of Galatians, rather than describing the content of this freedom as freedom from the law, Coppins argues that a more comprehensive type of freedom is in view in texts such as 2:4 and 5:1, 13, namely a freedom from the elements of the world. Noting that the situational impact on the literary function of Pauline paraenesis has not been studied thoroughly, Rudolf Hoppe (2010) 101

Pneuma und Gemeinde: Christsein in der Tradition des Paulus und Johannes: Festschrift für Josef Hainz zum 65. Geburtstag (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2001), pp. 15–32. Also available in: P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: B. Kowalski, R. Höffner and J. Verheyden (eds.), Studien zu Einleitungsfragen und zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Gesammelte Aufsätze von Peter Dschulnigg (Biblical Tools and Studies 9, Leuven/Paris/Walpole MA: Peeters, 2010), pp. 355–370. Steichele (eds.),

focuses on this issue in Galatians. Hoppe shows that in this instance the paraenesis primarily serves inner-Christian disputes instead of positioning the congregation in a non-Christian context. J. Ayodeji Adewuya 102 57 R.J. Kagarise, Paul’s Charismatic Imperatives (Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 43, Dorset: Deo Publishing, 2014), pp. 130–145. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004397194 (2010) focuses on the link between crucifixion and sanctification in Galatians. On the basis of 2:19–20, 5:24 and 6:14, Adewuya argues that Paul uses the notion of crucifixion to describe what happens to believers when they convert. God’s new people are identified by the indwelling of the Spirit and the Spirit brings about sanctification in their lives – an event that is both immediate (as in 2:20) and on-going (as in 5:24). According to Ladislav Tichý 103 58 S.A. Swanson, “The Instruction of the Spirit: The Wisdom Framework for Pauline Spirit Dependence”, Mid-America Journal of Theology 29 (2018), pp. 81–128. (2010), when Paul refers to “freedom” in Galatians, he primarily has freedom from “the works of the law” in mind. Furthermore, he also stresses the positive side of freedom in Christ. Freedom should be manifested by loving service to other people. Ariane Chabert 104 59 P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: J. Eckert, M. Schmidl and H. Steichele (eds.), Pneuma und Gemeinde: Christsein in der Tradition des Paulus und Johannes: Festschrift für Josef Hainz zum 65. Geburtstag (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2001), pp. 15–32. Also available in: P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: B. Kowalski, R. Höffner and J. Verheyden (eds.), Studien zu Einleitungsfragen und zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Gesammelte Aufsätze von Peter Dschulnigg (Biblical Tools and Studies 9, Leuven/Paris/Walpole MA: Peeters, 2010), pp. 355–370. (2012) interprets the apparent opposition between 6:2a and 6:5 as an indication of the different types of liberty that faith in Christ brings: from the world, the flesh, judgement and the I – an indication that liberty is the condition and the border of “the law of Christ”. According to Heikki Leppä 105 60 H. Löhr, “Paulus und der Wille zur Tat: Beobachtungen zu einer frühchristlichen Theologie als Anweisung zur Lebenskunst”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 98:2 (2007), pp. 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1515/ZNTW.2007.012 (2012), Paul forbade the Galatians (who were Gentile Christians) from following the law and instead provided them with a list of vices and virtues. Since the law was not part of the list of virtues, it does not play a part in Paul’s ethics in this letter. According to René A. López 106 61 T. Engberg-Pedersen, “A Stoic Concept of the Person in Paul? From Galatians 5:17 to Romans 7:14–25”, in: C.K. Rothschild and T.W. Thompson (eds.), Christian Body, Christian Self: Concepts of Early Christian Personhood (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.284, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), pp. 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151861-4 (2012), by means of the vice list in 5:19–21, Paul wishes to exhort Galatian believers. He wants them to stop performing “the works of the flesh” and instead allow the position that they have in Christ to enable them to live according to the Spirit. Mariam J. Kamell 107 62 Op. cit., p. 110. (2014) highlights parallels between 5:13–6:10 and the Letter of James and notes the following: Both Paul and James emphasise the importance of grace. In Paul’s case, the empowering agent is the Spirit, for James it is wisdom, but in both cases, the empowering agent is given, not earned. In the light of the investigation, Kamell also stresses the importance of sanctification for one’s understanding of soteriology. According to Jean-Noël Aletti 108 63 T. Engberg-Pedersen, “Von der ‘Sünde’ zur ‘Tugend’: Worum geht es eigentlich bei Paulus?”, Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 16:32 (2013), pp. 37–47. (2014), it is wrong to interpret 5:17 negatively as if it depicts believers as being ethically paralysed. Paul does not portray them as enslaved by the flesh or left to their own resources. They can allow the Spirit to guide them. John M.G. Barclay 109 64 J.-N. Aletti, New Approaches for Interpreting the Letters of Saint Paul: Collected Essays: Rhetoric, Soteriology, Christology and Ecclesiology: Translated from the French by Peggy Manning Meyer (Subsidia Biblica 43, Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2012), pp. 79–110. (2014) argues that in 6:1–6, Paul gives the Galatians a series of maxims to protect them from the disparaging influence of a “contest culture” dominated by a striving for honour. He expects them to behave in a way corresponding to the nature of the Christ-event as an unconditional gift from God. Pieter G.R. de Villiers 110 65 M. Kozák, La Lotta Interiore dell’Uomo: Uno Studio Esegetico-Teologico di Gal 5,16–26 e Rm 7,14–25 (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 227, Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2017). (2014) points out that scholars tend to ignore the importance of love in Galatians because of the polemical nature of the letter. De Villiers shows how important love in the letter is by discussing divine love (as the source of God’s salvific, transformative deeds and as divine characteristic) and love as distinguishing mark of the believing congregation. De Villiers also works out the implications of love for the ethos and ethics of believers. Oliver O’Donovan 111 66 B.H. Thomas, Living in the Flesh by the Spirit: The Pauline View of Flesh and Spirit in Galatians (Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock, 2020). (2014) considers the flesh-Spirit contrast in the ethics in Galatians. It is a way of framing ethical issues and not a law or demand, it enables Paul to bring into moral life the notion of spiritual liberation brought about by the new creation in Christ, and it focuses ethics on mutual service and love towards others. Volker Rabens 112 67 C. Pigeon, “‘La loi du Christ’ en Galates 6,2”, Studies in Religion 29:4 (2000), pp. 425–438. (2014) is of the view that one does not necessarily have to give up the indicative-imperative approach to the ethics of Galatians, as long as one keeps in mind that this is but one aspect underlying Paul’s ethics in the letter. Rabens also suggests that it may be better to speak of the “implicit indicative-imperative” in the letter, since Paul does not always use these grammatical categories when expressing the divine and human sides of actions. Peter G. Kirchschlaeger 113 68 M. Winger, “The Law of Christ”, New Testament Studies 46:4 (2000), pp. 537–546. (2014) explains the relationship between freedom, love, the Spirit and the flesh according to 5:13 as follows: The Spirit directs the freedom of believers, thereby moving them away from the flesh towards lives characterised by love. Llane B. Briese 114 69 J. Marcus, “‘Under the Law’: The Background of a Pauline Expression”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63:1 (2001), pp. 72–83. (2016) draws attention to the imagery of slavery used in 5:13–18 and 2 Corinthians 4:1–6 to describe ethical issues, highlighting the way in which Paul uses this metaphor to link the behaviour of believers to the Father, Son and Spirit. Tadeusz Knut 115 70 I.-G. Hong, “Being ‘under the Law’ in Galatians”, Evangelical Review of Theology 26:4 (2002), pp. 354–372. (2016) describes 6:2 as an incentive by Paul to believers to help sinners carry their burdens (with “burdens” to be taken as moral “weight” caused by sinning) so that conversion can take place. Matthew Myer Boulton 116 71 J.L. Martyn, “Nomos Plus Genitive Noun in Paul: The History of God’s Law”, in: J.T. Fitzgerald, T.H. Olbricht and L.M. White (eds.), Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 110, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2003), pp. 575–587. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047402190_028 (2016) explains the meaning of “self-control” in 5:23 as follows: “It is our inner strength, but at a deeper level it is the strength of the Spirit flowing in us and through us. In this sense it is a participation in the Spirit’s vitality and vigor. It is within us, but it is also something we are within.” 117 72 Op. cit., p. 583. Heinz A. Hiestermann and Gert J. Steyn 118 73 G. Stanton, Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511616976 (2016) look again at the relationship between 5:14 and Romans 13:8–10 and possible Synoptic parallels and argue that a connection between Romans 13:9 and Matthew 19:1–19 is probable. In a thorough investigation of the ethics of Galatians, Gysbert M.H. Loubser 119 74 T.A. Wilson, “‘Under Law’ in Galatians: A Pauline Theological Abbreviation”, Journal of Theological Studies 56:2 (2005), pp. 362–392. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/fli108 (2017) highlights Paul’s emphasis on the radicalness of the new life brought about by the coming of Christ and his Spirit. The Spirit introduces the followers of Christ to the new life in him and leads them to a life of faithfulness, bringing about the fruit of Spirit. This is a life of freedom (from the elements of the world and from the law), which implies that the ethics of the new creation is Christological and pneumatological but also anomistic. Sean Winter 120 75 T.A. Wilson, “The Law of Christ and the Law of Moses: Reflections on a Recent Trend in Interpretation”, Currents in Biblical Research 5:1 (2006), pp. 123–144. (2019) is of the opinion that the positive statements that Paul makes about the law in 5:13–14 and 6:2 amidst his otherwise sharp criticism of the law in the letter can be explained by means of Lou Martin’s notion of the two voices of the law, something that Paul experienced himself and expressed in 2:19–21. František Ábel 121 76 F. Adeyemi, “The New Covenant Law and the Law of Christ”, Bibliotheca Sacra 163:652 (2006), pp. 438–452. (2019) points out that scholars’ view of freedom in Galatians has been influenced greatly by Luther’s interpretation of it as freedom from the law and instead approaches the concept in terms of the sociocultural dynamics in the first century CE. Because of their acceptance of the gospel, the Galatians acquired a new identity, freedom in Christ. Grant Buchanan 122 77 J. Murphy-O’Connor, “The Unwritten Law of Christ (Gal 6:2)”, Revue Biblique 119:2 (2012), pp. 213–231. Also available in: J. Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to Galatians: Collected Essays (Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 2012), pp. 123–143. (2020) highlights the link between identity and human agency in Galatians 5 and 6 as follows: Through Christ’s coming a new community has been established and this community is no longer controlled by the sin and flesh. Instead, believers should now actively choose themselves to lead a new life. Paul thus stresses agency in these two chapters. Friedrich Wilhelm Horn 123 78 J.D.G. Dunn, “‘Under the Law’”, in: J. Krans, B.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, P.-B. Smit and A.W. Zwiep (eds.), Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer (Novum Testamentum Supplements 149, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2013), pp. 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004250369_005 (2020) discusses the use of concept of liberty in 5:13 and 1 Peter 2:16, arguing that they are not related in any way. Galatians 5:13 focuses on liberty as slavery towards Christ, characterised by freedom from oneself and expressed as love towards the neighbour, whereas the use of the concept in 1 Peter 2:16 presupposes the defamation of believers in society – a situation in which they are called upon to use their political liberty in such a way that no offense is caused to anyone. According to Gideon Baker 124 79 F. Bianchini, “Il νόμος in Gal 5,13–6,10”, Biblica 94:1 (2013), pp. 47–62. (2020), Paul’s reduction of the dual commandment (love of God and the neighbour) to love of one’s neighbour in 5:13 and Romans 13:9 should be understood in terms of his Messianic perspective on worldliness. Since he thinks of one’s neighbour as somebody living right next to one in this world, he reduces love of God to love of one’s neighbour. Baker also refers to the contributions of Heidegger and Agamben in this investigation. In a study of Pauline ethics in 5:13–14 and Romans 13:8–10, Mariapushpam Paulraj 125 80 B.S. Rosner, Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology 31, Downers Grove IL/Nottingham: IVP Academic, 2013). (2020) argues that Paul correctly makes Jesus’ proclamation of love the foundation of his ethics but that one should also take note of the fact that he tends to reduce love to insiders in his exhortations and that this might cause the church to become inward-looking. Céline Rohmer 126 81 H.H. Cho, “The Study of the Meaning of Ό ΝΟΜΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ in Galatians 6:2”, 신약연구 14:4 (2015), pp. 516–543. (2020) draws attention to the aesthetic dimension of Galatians, arguing that in the three instances in the letter where Paul refers to “the good”, a Pauline aesthetic also becomes visible. Paul not only views the truth of the gospel as an event of liberation, he also points out the beauty of the divine transformation at work: in 4:12–20, he describes beauty as a creative gesture of God, in 5:1–13, he focuses on the usefulness of beauty for a free existence and in 6:1–10, he stresses that the good depends on beauty.

5.7 Christian existence and spirituality

In the light of 5:25, Domingos Terra 127 82 H.H. Cho, “ὁ νόμος τοῦ Χριστοῦ Reconsidered: A Fresh Look at Galatians 6:2, Barnabas 2:6, and Magnesians 2”, Canon & Culture 13:1 (2019), pp. 263–294. (2008) points out that the nature of Christian experience is quite often misinterpreted in that people do not realise that the dominant aspect to be grasped for a true understanding of spirituality is an emphasis on God’s primacy and sovereignty and not on social and cultural expressions. D. Francois Tolmie 128 83 A.J. Hultgren, “The Ethical Reorientation of Paul: From the Law of Moses to the Law of Christ”, Currents in Theology and Mission 46:2 (2019), pp. 30–33. (2013) identifies three core elements of the spiritual activity of discernment (reflection, choice and the relationship to God) and discusses several references to discernment in Galatians: 2:1–10, 2:11–21, 3:1–5 and 5:13–6:10. Elma Cornelius 129 84 J.P. Heil, The Letters of Paul as Rituals of Worship (Eugene OR: Cascade, 2011), pp. 64–74. (2014) explores the relevance of 5:16–25 for the current debate on spiritual excellence. Cornelius shows that the virtues used by Paul to characterise a life filled by the Spirit are similar to what is nowadays regarded as having a life that is spiritually mature. Thus, living a life filled by the Spirit helps one to manage problems, changes the way in which one does business and contributes to individuals, families, companies and nations being successful and becoming whole. Whereas a slowness to change spiritually is usually linked to sin or to the world, flesh and the devil, Steven L. Porter 130 85 J.L. Boyce, “The Poetry of the Spirit: Willing and Doing in Galatians 5 and 6”, Word & World 20:3 (2000), pp. 290–298. (2014) argues that a relational understanding of “flesh” as something resisting the Spirit offers a better explanation. Thus “flesh” should not simply be understood as the inclination to sin but rather as the inclination to resist the Spirit and to live independently. This implies that sanctification is not primarily a matter of improved willpower, but rather of more dependence on God. Michael H. Crosby 131 86 B.L. Melbourne, “Order or Disorder: The Structure of the Vices and Virtues in Galatians 5:19–23 Reconsidered”, St. Nersess Theological Review 7 (2002), pp. 85–99. (2015) offers an appropriation of the “fruit of the Spirit” (5:22–23) as an expression of Pauline mysticism for our times. Crosby believes that such a mystical theology will help to cross the divide between episcopal nomists and other Catholics who are not satisfied with institutional Catholicism. In a study offering a “spirituality for activists”, Robert J. Gench 132 87 J.P. Sweeney, “The ‘Spiritual’ Task of Restoration: A Brief Note on Galatians 6:1”, The Expository Times 114:8 (2003), pp. 259–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/001452460311400803 (2020) offers a discussion of “the fruit of the Spirit” as an expression of a cruciform spirituality – something that should not only be personal, but should also have a very definite public, political, embodiment. Chapter 18: Galatians 6:11–18 The issues that attracted the most interest from scholars in this pericope are the expressions “new creation” in v. 15 and “the Israel of God” in v. 16.

1. Introductory Issues

1.1 Occasion

Alexander V. Prokhorov 1 88 O. Hofius, “Widerstreit zwischen Fleisch und Geist? Erwägungen zu Gal 5, 17”, in: U. Mittmann-Richert, F. Avemarie and G.S. Oegema (eds.), Der Mensch vor Gott: Forschungen zum Menschenbild in Bibel, antikem Judentum und Koran: Festschrift Hermann Lichtenberger (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), pp. 147–159. Also available in: O. Hofius, Exegetische Studien (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.223, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), pp. 161–172. For a response to Hofius’s contribution, see J. Lambrecht, “Once Again Galatians 5,17: Grammar and Logic in the Exegesis of O. Hofius”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 89:1 (2013), pp. 113–115. https://doi.org/10.2143/ETL.89.1.2985327 (2013) interprets vv. 12–17 as an indication that the problems that the Galatians had were not caused by Judaisers but by other Gentiles, since the Galatians stopped participating in Roman imperial rituals when they turned to Christianity. According to Martin Goodman 2 89 L.W. Hurtado, “Jesus’ Death as Paradigmatic in the New Testament”, Scottish Journal of Theology 57:4 (2004), pp. 413–433. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003693060400033X (2018), v. 12 refers specifically to Gentile believers in Galatians who were trying to avoid persecution by other Gentiles who were upset because they had abandoned the religious practices of the Gentile communities. Based on an investigation of vv. 12–13 (and 5:11), Woo-Kyung Lee 3 90 Á. Michelín Salomón, “El Fruto del Espíritu: Acerca de la Carta a los Gálatas”, Cuadernos de Teología 23 (2004), pp. 31–43. (2020) concludes that Paul followed a strict form of Judaism/zealotism before his conversion and that he was later persecuted by Jewish Christians with similar beliefs. They tried to persuade the Galatians to be circumcised in order to avoid persecution by other Jews.

1.2 Historical studies

Peter J. Tomson 4 91 G.M.H. Loubser, “Paul’s Ethic of Freedom: No Flash in the Galatian Pan”, Neotestamentica 39:2 (2005), pp. 313–337. (2017) disagrees with Martin Goodman’s view that Josephus’s presentation of Judaea in the first half of the first century CE is incorrect. One of the arguments that Tomson uses is the Letters to the Romans and the Galatians (amongst others v. 12) that he believes indicate increasing pressure on Gentile Christians in Judaea to keep the Jewish law. In 2019, Martin Goodman 5 92 M. Konradt, “‘Die aus Glauben, diese sind Kinder Abrahams’ (Gal 3,7): Erwägungen zum galatischen Konflikt im Lichte frühjüdischer Abrahamtraditionen”, in: G. Gelardini (ed.), Kontexte der Schrift: Band I: Text, Ethik, Judentum und Christentum, Gesellschaft: Ekkehard W. Stegemann zum 60. Geburtstag (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005), pp. 25‑48. responded. Amongst other things, Goodman contends that Tomson is wrong in arguing that this verse refers to Jews from Judaea. Rather, it refers to Gentile Christians in Galatia who tried to avoid persecution from Gentile neighbours.

1.3 Background

According to Klaus Vibe 6 93 P. Mageto, “Toward an Ethic of Shared Responsibility in Galatians 5:13–15”, Evangelical Review of Theology 30:1 (2006), pp. 86–94. (2019), the ancient elite used the notion of παιδεία (“upbringing” or “training”) to justify their own superiority, thus making it a type of cultural capital. From vv. 14–15 it is clear that circumcision – another type of cultural capital – was of no importance to Paul. The same applied to παιδεία.

2. Translational and stylistic issues

One of the slavery metaphors that Sam Tsang 7 94 D.F. Tolmie, “Liberty – Love – Spirit: Ethics and Ethos According to the Letter to the Galatians”, in: J.G. van der Watt (ed.), Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 141, Berlin/New York NY: De Gruyter, 2006), pp. 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110893939.241 (2005) discusses in the light of insights from the New Rhetoric is Paul’s self-description in v. 17 in terms of the branding of slaves. Tsang places this metaphor in the first of the three categories: apologetic usage (the other two are polemical and didactic usage). Timothy Ashworth 8 95 G.M.H. Loubser, “The Ethic of the Free: A Walk According to the Spirit! A Perspective from Galatians”, Verbum et Ecclesia 27:2 (2006), pp. 614–640. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v27i2.167 (2010) argues that στοιχέω (in 5:25 and 6:16) and στοιχεῖα (in 4:3, 9), usually translated as “walk” and “elemental spirits/principles” respectively, should rather be translated as “keeping aligned with” (in the sense of “keeping aligned in the footsteps of”) and “things that keep aligned behaviour/give directions for behaviour”.

3. Wirkungsgeschichte

Carolyn Muessig 9 96 G.M.H. Loubser, “Life in the Spirit as Wise Remedy for the Folly of the Flesh: Ethical Notes from Galatians”, Neotestamentica 43:2 (2009), pp. 354–371. (2013) discusses the evolution in the interpretation of the stigmata that Paul mentions in v. 17: an invisible mark that bishops or priests received at ordination (seventh century), a stigmatic spirituality that could be achieved by vows and penances (Peter Damian), the marks/wounds that crusaders bore in or as a result of battle (twelfth century) and, finally, a pious superlative that could be achieved by devout lay people (thirteenth century). In a book published in 2020, Muessig 10 97 J.A. Kelhoffer, “Suppressing Anger in Early Christianity: Examples from the Pauline Tradition”, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 47:3 (2007), pp. 307–325. Also available in: J.A. Kelhoffer, Conceptions of “Gospel” and Legitimacy in Early Christianity (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.324, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), pp. 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-152993-1 (2020) offers a comprehensive overview of the way in which the stigmata have been interpreted. Amongst other things, Muessig shows that women more frequently reported having stigmata than men, and that the perception of stigmata was later influenced by doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants. One of the sermons chosen by Jonathan M. Yeager 11 98 W.V. Harris, Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger Control in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge MA/London: Harvard University Press, 2001) (2013) to illustrate Early Evangelism is based on v. 14. In this sermon, John Maclaurin (1693–1754) emphasises that eternal salvation is only possible through the death of Jesus – a death that paradoxically both humiliated and glorified him. Jessalyn Bird 12 99 K. Fretheim, “Grums i Galaterbrevet: Om Kristen Etikk, Paulus og den Prioriterte Andre”, Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke 79:2 (2008), pp. 113–129. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1504-2952-2008-02-03 (2018) investigates sermons for Good Friday and Holy Week in crusade preaching during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. One of the examples that Bird discusses is the way in which Odo of Cheriton preached on v. 14 (“Far from me to boast save in the cross …”).

4. Interpretative approaches

4.1 Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures

In a contribution on Paul’s use of Second Isaiah in Galatians, Martinus C. de Boer 13 100 W. Coppins, The Interpretation of Freedom in the Letters of Paul: With Special Reference to the “German” Tradition (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.261, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151604-7 (2002) argues that there are clear indications that Paul knew Second Isaiah and that he used insights from it to formulate his own apocalyptic eschatology. De Boer discusses 1:15–16, 4:19, 21–5:1 and 6:15. According to Maureen W. Yeung 14 101 R. Hoppe, “Paränese und Theologie im Galaterbrief – eine Profilskizze”, in: M. Bachmann and B. Kollmann (eds.), Umstrittener Galaterbrief: Studien zur Situierung und Theologie des Paulus-Schreibens (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 106, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010), pp. 207–230. (2011), the three paradoxes inherent in the expressions “the seed of Abraham” (3:16, 29), “the law of Christ” (6:2) and “the Israel of God” (6:16), are genuine paradoxes. They were already implicit in the Hebrew Scriptures and Paul merely developed them within his missionary context. Stefan Bosman 15 102 J.A. Adewuya, “Paul, Crucifixion, and Sanctification in Galatians”, in: S.J. Land, R.D. Moore and J.C. Thomas (eds.), Passover, Pentecost and Parousia: Studies in Celebration of the Life and Ministry of R. Hollis Gause (Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 36, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2010), pp. 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004397125_008 (2018) discusses Paul’s use of Jewish traditions in 1 Corinthians 10:4, Galatians 6:16 and Romans 5:12. In the case of Galatians 6:16, Bosman uses Isaiah 54 and 1 Enoch 1 to argue for a Jewish exegetical trajectory significantly similar to Paul’s statement.

4.2 Social-scientific approaches

From Paul’s use of the term εὐπροσωπέω (“make a good showing”) in vv. 12–13, David S. Harvey 16 103 L. Tichý, “‘Svoboda’ v Listu Galaťanům”, Studia Theologica 4 (2010), pp. 1–16. (2018) deduces that there was also a concern about honour in the Galatian crisis. Accordingly, Paul tried to encourage a type of ethics specifically rejecting attempts to publicly gain honour.

4.3 Epistolographical approaches

Chris Keith 17 104 A. Chabert, “βάρη et φορτίον: Vocation et limite de la liberté en Christ: Une proposition de lecture de Gal 6,2 et 6,5”, Rivista Biblica 60:3 (2012), pp. 357–370. (2008) argues that the passages in which Paul draws attention to the fact that he has written part of a letter himself (as in v. 11) are not merely asides. They help to heighten the rhetorical force of the letter. Jeff Hubing 18 105 H. Leppä, “The Torah in Galatians”, in: M. Meiser (ed.), The Torah in the Ethics of Paul (Library of New Testament Studies 473, London: T & T Clark, 2012), pp. 59–69. See also the more general contribution by Meiser in this volume: M. Meiser, “The Torah in the Ethics of Paul”, in: M. Meiser (ed.), The Torah in the Ethics of Paul (Library of New Testament Studies 473, London: T & T Clark, 2012), pp. 120–143. (2015) disagrees with scholars who take vv. 11–17 merely as the letter closing. According to Hubing, it serves as the closing of the body of the letter and also as the climax of Paul’s argument. Joo Ki Cheol 19 106 R.A. López, “Paul’s Vice List in Galatians 5:19–21”, Bibliotheca Sacra 169:673 (2012), pp. 48–67. See also (more generally): R.A. López, “Views on Paul’s Vice Lists and Inheriting the Kingdom”, Bibliotheca Sacra 168:669 (2011), pp. 81–97. (2016) highlights the following special features of the peace benediction that Paul uses in v. 16: the blessing of those who follow his example, the use of the term “the Israel of God” instead of “you” (because he wishes to refer to all believers) and the addition of the term “mercy” (because the Galatians were struggling with the false teachers propagating circumcision). Steve Reece’s 20 107 M.J. Kamell, “Life in the Spirit and Life in Wisdom: Reading Galatians and James as a Dialogue ”, in: M.W. Elliott, S.J. Hafemann, N.T. Wright and J. Frederick (eds.), Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 353–362. (2017) investigation of Paul’s “large letters” (in v. 17) in the light of ancient epistolary conventions yields the following results: Paul follows a common contemporary practice and the reference to his large letters highlights the difference between his handwriting and that of his scribe.

4.4 Rhetorical approaches

In a text-based rhetorical analysis of the letter, D. Francois Tolmie 21 108 J.-N. Aletti, “Paul’s Exhortations in Galatians 5:16–25: From the Apostle’s Techniques to His Theology ”, in: M.W. Elliott, S.J. Hafemann, N.T. Wright and J. Frederick (eds.), Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 318–335. (2005) summarises Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy in this pericope as adapting the letter closing for a final refutation of the opponents. This is achieved by means of several commands, exhortations and promises. One of the slavery metaphors that Sam Tsang 22 109 J.M.G. Barclay, “Grace and the Countercultural Reckoning of Worth: Community Construction in Galatians 5–6”, in: M.W. Elliott, S.J. Hafemann, N.T. Wright and J. Frederick (eds.), Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 306–317. (2005) discusses in the light of insights from the New Rhetoric is Paul’s self-description in v. 17 in terms of the branding of slaves. Tsang describes the rhetorical function of this metaphor as apologetic. James A. Kelhoffer 23 110 P.G.R. de Villiers, “Transformation in Love in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 19 (2014), pp. 143–163. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v33i2S.8 (2009) explains how Paul uses the notion of suffering as a defence of his apostolic authority. In the case of Galatians, Kelhoffer discusses 4:29, 5:11, 6:12 and 6:17. The point that Paul tries to get across is that his opponents avoided persecution whereas he was willing to suffer for the gospel – a state of affairs that confirms his status as an apostle. Dieter Sänger 24 111 O. O’Donovan, “Ethics: Flesh and Spirit”, in: M.W. Elliott, S.J. Hafemann, N.T. Wright and J. Frederick (eds.), Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 271–284. (2011) identifies several literary strategies that Paul uses in his polemics in Galatians. However, although Paul makes use of harsh antithesis, aggressive language and polemics bordering on insults, he ends the letter in a hopeful way, by “Amen”. Mihae Afrențoae 25 112 V. Rabens, “‘Indicative and Imperative’ as the Substructure of Paul’s Theology-and-Ethics in Galatians? A Discussion of Divine and Human Agency in Paul”, in: M.W. Elliott, S.J. Hafemann, N.T. Wright and J. Frederick (eds.), Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2014), pp. 285–305. (2016) discusses vv. 11–18 (pride in the cross as sign of the new creation) as an example of epideictic rhetoric used by Paul to convey important educational values of the gospel to his readers.

4.5 Ideology-critical approaches

Jeremy W. Barrier 26 113 P.G. Kirchschlaeger, “The Relation between Freedom, Love, Spirit and Flesh in Galatians 5:13”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 19 (2014), pp. 130–142. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v33i2S.7 (2008) interprets the “marks” mentioned in v. 17 from a postcolonial perspective as follows: They demonstrate Paul’s self-identity as a slave and his longing for a master worthy of his loyalty – a factor which, according to Barrier, makes the slavery metaphor undesirable and emphasises the necessity for Christians to look for better metaphors in our times. Angela N. Parker 27 114 L.B. Briese, Walking the Path of Service: An Exegetical-Theological Study of Gal 5,13–18 and 2 Cor 4,1–6 (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 223, Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2016). (2018) problematises Paul’s reference to the “marks of Jesus” on his body (v. 17). From a feminist perspective, Parker criticises the privileged way in which Paul refers to his own body here, also the fact that he identifies himself as a slave and a mother. Instead, Parker highlights the notion of “bearing one another’s burdens” as a womanist action showing solidarity across gender and racial divides.

4.6 Performance criticism

Bernhard Oestreich 28 115 T. Knut, “Analiza Egzegetyczna Wypowiedzi św. Pawła Apostoła ‘Jeden Drugiego Brzemiona Noście’ (Ga 6,2) w Kontekście Ga 6,1–5”, Studia Koszalińsko-Kołobrzeskie 23 (2016), pp. 43–54. https://doi.org/10.18276/skk.2016.23-03 (2012) illustrates the use of performance criticism for interpreting the Pauline letters – an approach taking seriously the fact that the letters were read aloud to the recipients in his congregations – by discussing examples from several Pauline letters. Oestreich describes Paul’s reference to his body in v. 17 as having an “alienation effect” (“Verfremdungseffekt”).

5. Theological issues

5.1 Paul: Self-understanding

Charles Ensminger 29 116 M.M. Boulton, “Self-Control”, Journal for Preachers 39:4 (2016), pp. 55‑58. (2001) interprets v. 17 as an indication that Paul literally bore stigmata and that he used this fact in the letter for validating his gospel and for authenticating his claim that Christ was revealed through him. Hans Klein 30 117 Op. cit., p. 58. (2010) focuses on the way in which Paul and John defend their roles as messengers of God (“Gottgesandten”). All that they can do is to refer to themselves and their mission, but there is no absolute proof that they can offer. In the case of Galatians, Paul refers to his suffering (the marks that he carries in v. 17) as evidence of his apostleship.

5.2 Cosmology

One of the issues that Michael Wolter 31 118 H.A. Hiestermann and G.J. Steyn, “The Command to Love the Neighbour in Paul and the Synoptics”, Verbum et Ecclesia 37:1 (2016), pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v37i1.1627 See also: H. Hiestermann, Paul and the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 58, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2017), pp. 176–209. (2013) discusses in a study of God and the world in the Pauline letters is how cosmology and ecclesiology are interrelated. One of the passages that Wolter uses to illustrate this notion is vv. 14–15. In this instance, Paul draws a boundary between those who believe in Christ and those who belong to the world. Martinus C. de Boer 32 119 G.M.H. Loubser, Paul Cries Freedom in Galatia! On Ethics in the New Creation (Theology in Africa 6, Vienna/Zürich: LIT Verlag, 2017). (2013) investigates the reference of the term “cosmos” in 4:3 and 6:14. In 4:3, it refers to the physical world and in 6:14, to the religion based on the law. These two uses of the term are linked in the sense that the end of the religion based on the law (6:14) is also the end of the “elements of the world” (4:3).

5.3 Anthropology

Peter Dschulnigg 33 120 S. Winter, “Paul’s Ethics and Paul’s Experience: Law and Love in Galatians”, in: M. Zehnder and P. Wick (eds.), Biblical Ethics: Tensions between Justice and Mercy, Law and Love (Gorgias Biblical Studies 70, Piscataway NJ: Gorgias Press, 2019), pp. 251–270. https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463239466-012 (2001) offers a detailed discussion of all 18 instances of the term “spirit” in Galatians. In the case of 6:1 and 18, Dschulnigg focuses on Paul’s use of the term in an anthropological sense. Simon Butticaz 34 121 F. Ábel, “Freedom in Christ in Galatians: A Matter of Identity”, Communio Viatorum 61:3 (2019), pp. 235–255. (2015) argues that Paul’s views on identity in Galatians are not an ethnic discourse but rather an anthropological and cosmological discourse, since believers (Jews and Gentiles) are said to become a “new creation” (v. 15) and not a “new people”. On the basis of an exegetical study of vv. 11–18, Emmanuel O. Oyemomi 35 122 G. Buchanan, “Identity and Human Agency in Galatians 5–6”, Australian Biblical Review 68 (2020), pp. 54–66. (2019) contends that anthropology forms the core of Pauline thought, in particular the notion of the new human being in Christ.

5.4 Israel, covenant and Abraham

The expression “Israel of God” in v. 16 drew the attention of many scholars. Some opted for interpreting it as referring to all believers, thus as including both Gentile and Jewish believers, whereas others restricted the meaning to Jewish people. In the latter case, “Jewish people” was not always understood in the same way. We will first look at scholars who opted for the former approach. Andreas J. Köstenberger 36 123 F.W. Horn, “Vom Missbrauch, von der Missdeutung und vom Bewahren der Freiheit: Galater 5,13 und 1. Petrus 2,16”, in: M. Bauspieß, J.U. Beck and F. Portenhauser (eds.), Bestimmte Freiheit: Festschrift für Christof Landmesser zum 60. Geburtstag (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 64, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2020), pp. 81–94. (2001) interprets the expression in the light of the rest of the letter as referring to all believers living according to the new rule that Paul mentions in the previous verse, regardless of their ethnicity. In an investigation of Paul’s theology of Israel, Richard H. Bell 37 124 G. Baker, “Paul’s Reduction of the Dual Commandment: The Significance of Worldliness to Messianic Life”, Political Theology 21:7 (2020), pp. 606–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/1462317x.2020.1787603 (2005) considers v. 17. Bell interprets the expression as a reference to both Jewish and Gentile believers, thus indicating that Paul believed that the church replaced Israel as God’s people. Christoper W. Cowan 38 125 M. Paulraj, “Love of Neighbour: The Axis of Pauline Ethics: A Brief Study of Gal 5:13–14 and Rom 13:8–10”, Jnanadeepa 24:1 (2020), pp. 74–94. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4060142 (2010) lists and evaluates the arguments that are usually offered for the two interpretations. Cowan believes that taking the expression as referring to the unified people of God makes the best sense if one takes the context of the letter seriously. Mogens Müller 39 126 C. Rohmer, “Du deutéro-Élian à l’Élian historique: Relecture d’une course belle”, Études Théologiques et Religieuses 95:3 (2020), pp. 531–541. https://doi.org/10.3917/etr.953.0531 (2015) also evaluates the different ways in which the expression has been interpreted by scholars but argues that the only interpretation corresponding to Paul’s view of salvation (faith working through love) is that it refers to the church. Ole Jakob Filtvedt 40 127 D. Terra, “Experiência Cristã: Especificidade e Equívocos: A Propósito da Expressão ‘Viver pelo Espírito’ (Gal 5,25)”, Didaskalia 38:1 (2008), pp. 89–112. (2016) offers a thorough overview and assessment of the key arguments that scholars normally use to decide on the meaning of the expression and concludes that those who view the expression as including non-Jews have the fewest problems in deciding what it means and how it is linked to the rule that Paul mentions in the previous verse. The other option was proposed by several scholars: Michael Bachmann 41 128 D.F. Tolmie, “Discernment in the Letter to the Galatians”, Acta Theologica Supplementum 17 (2013), pp. 156–171. https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v32i2S.12 (2010) draws attention to tradition-historical data showing that the reference to peace was typically found towards the end of Jewish prayers and thus argues that Paul had Jewish Christians and Jews in general in mind when he used this expression. Susan Grove Eastman 42 129 E. Cornelius, “The Relevance of Galatians 5:16–26 in the Modern ‘Spiritual Intelligence’ Debate”, Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif 55:3/4 (2014), pp. 589–610. https://doi.org/10.5952/55-3-4-655 (2010) offers a rereading of v. 16 and Romans 9–11, claiming that “Israel” refers in both instances to Jews. In v. 16, Paul prays for “peace” upon those living according to the new creation and “mercy” on Israel who does not believe in Christ. According to Christiane Zimmermann 43 130 S.L. Porter, “The Gradual Nature of Sanctification: σάρξ as Habituated, Relational Resistance to the Spirit”, Themelios 39:3 (2014), pp. 470‑483. (2012), one should understand neither the term “the church of God” (1:13) nor “the Israel of God” in a metaphorical sense, since in both instances the genitive emphasises the close association with God. This implies that the expression “the Israel of God” refers to Israel, a notion that Paul works out in more detail in Romans 9–11. Philip la G. du Toit 44 131 M.H. Crosby, Fruit of the Spirit: Pauline Mysticism for the Church Today (Maryknoll NY: Orbis, 2015). (2016) takes the third καί (“and”) in v. 16 as a normal copulative (thus not as an epexegetical καί) and offers various arguments as to why one should regard “Israel” as referring to Israel in the era before Christ’s coming. In a later publication in which Du Toit 45 132 R.J. Gench, The Cross Examen: A Spirituality for Activists (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2020). (2019) works this out in much more detail by reading Romans 11:26 and Galatians 6:16 in terms of the new identity that believers have in Christ and in the Spirit, the same conclusion is reached with regard to Galatians 6:16: “[I]t denotes the inner, elect Israel of the old eon before Christ.” 46 1 A.V. Prokhorov, “Taking the Jews out of the Equation: Galatians 6.12–17 as a Summons to Cease Evading Persecution”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36:2 (2013), pp. 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X13507163 Du Toit also discusses the implications of this insight for understanding Pauline theology. Jan Lambrecht 47 2 M. Goodman, “Galatians 6:12 on Circumcision and Persecution”, in: M.L. Satlow (ed.), Strength to Strength: Essays in Honor of Shaye J.D. Cohen (Brown Judaic Studies 363, Providence RI: Brown University, 2018), pp. 275–279. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv9hj775.20 (2017) disagrees with Moo’s 48 3 W.-K. Lee, “Paul, His Opponents, and Their Persecutors: A Study Based on Galatians 5:11, 6:12–13”, 신학논단 101 (2020), pp. 209–246. https://doi.org/10.17301/tf.2020.09.101.209 interpretation of the term as referring to God’s people consisting of Gentile and Jewish believers and instead argues that it is not impossible that Paul had ethnic Israel in mind. Ralph J. Korner 49 4 P.J. Tomson, “Sources on the Politics of Judaea in the 50s CE: A Response to Martin Goodman”, Journal of Jewish Studies 68:2 (2017), pp. 234–259. https://doi.org/10.18647/3324/JJS-2017 (2017) interprets the expression as referring to a specific group of Jewish believers, i.e., Jewish believers who did not require of Gentile believers to be circumcised and who were linked to an apostolic community in Jerusalem. Jonathan Pratt 50 5 M. Goodman, “The Politics of Judaea in the 50s CE: The Use of the New Testament”, Journal of Jewish Studies 70:2 (2019), pp. 225–236. https://doi.org/10.18647/3415/jjs-2019 (2018) offers an overview of the strongest arguments offered for the two interpretations and finds the arguments in favour of interpreting the expression as referring to the Jewish believers in Galatia the best. Two other studies should also be noted in this section: Aaron Sherwood 51 6 K. Vibe, “The Cultural Capital of This World and Paul’s Theology of New Creation: Paul’s Gospel and Greek paideia”, European Journal of Theology 28:2 (2019), pp. 99–109. https://doi.org/10.5117/EJT2019.2.002.VIBE (2013) interprets this pericope as containing some references to the notion of the unification of Israel and the nations, since both groups were present amongst the recipients of the letter. Sherwood points out that the Jewish traditions normally associated with the notion of unification (worship, Scripture and the restoration of humankind) do not explicitly occur in this instance but that they are implied. In a study investigating the question of what makes the Hebrew Scriptures Christian, J. David Stark 52 7 S. Tsang, From Slaves to Sons: A New Rhetoric Analysis on Paul’s Slave Metaphors in His Letter to the Galatians (Studies in Biblical Literature 81, New York NY: Peter Lang, 2005), pp. 63–73. (2016) argues that from the beginning, the Christian church formulated a rule of faith guiding it to properly hear the divine word and that this rule entailed a respect for the Hebrew Scriptures because it came from the Creator God. One of the passages that Stark uses to illustrate this idea, is vv. 11–15.

5.5 Soteriology

John A. Davies 53 8 T. Ashworth, “Spirit-Led Freedom: Examining a Significant Detail in Galatians”, Scripture Bulletin (Online) 40:2 (2010), pp. 75–87. (2012) discusses the three instances in which Paul writes that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything (Galatians 5:6, 6:15 and 1 Corinthians 7:19). Davies argues that although Paul’s indication of what does count differs in each case (faith made effective by love, new creation and obedience of God’s commandments) the dominant factor in all the passages is an emphasis on Christ’s role and believers’ identification with him.

5.6 Ethics

Larry W. Hurtado 54 9 C. Muessig, “Signs of Salvation: The Evolution of Stigmatic Spirituality before Francis of Assisi”, Church History 82:1 (2013), pp. 40–68. https:// (2004) stresses the ways in which New Testament writers regard Jesus’ death as paradigmatic and as criterion for the daily life of believers. In Galatians, Hurtado draws attention to 2:19–20, 5:24–25 and 6:13–14 and 17. J. Ayodeji Adewuya 55

doi.org/10.1017/S000964071200251X

(2010) focuses on the link between crucifixion and sanctification in Galatians. On the basis of 2:19–20, 5:24 and 6:14, Adewuya argues that Paul uses the notion of crucifixion to describe what happens to believers when they convert. God’s new people are identified by the indwelling of the Spirit and the Spirit brings about sanctification in their lives – an event that is both immediate (as in 2:20) and on-going (as in 5:24).

5.7 New Creation

According to Moyer V. Hubbard 56 10 C. Muessig, The Stigmata in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020). (2002), the expression “new creation” in v. 15 is used in an anthropological sense, with the emphasis on God’s creative work in the individual, which makes one’s outer state irrelevant. Douglas J. Moo 57 11 J.M. Yeager (ed.), Early Evangelism: A Reader (Oxford/New York NY: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 178–184. (2010) interprets the expression “new creation” in v. 17 (and in 2 Corinthians 5:17) as referring to the new situation brought about by Christ’s coming – a situation that will be consummated at his return. This will involve a total, cosmic renewal. Rodrigo J. Morales 58 12 J. Bird, “‘Far Be It from Me to Glory Save in the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Galatians 6:14): Crusade Preaching and Sermons for Good Friday and Holy Week”, in: M.E. Parker, B. Halliburton and A. Romine (eds.), Crusading in Art, Thought and Will (The Medieval Mediterranean: Peoples, Economies and Cultures, 400–1500 115, 2018), pp. 129–165. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004386136_007 (2010) discusses the importance of the themes of the new exodus, new creation and the restoration of Israel in Galatians. According to Morales, Paul regarded the gift of the Spirit as a fulfilment of God’s promise to restore Israel. Furthermore, Paul followed Deutero-Isaiah by linking the Spirit to the blessing of Abraham and the inclusion of the Gentiles. T. Ryan Jackson 59 13 M.C. de Boer, “Second Isaiah and Paul’s Eschatology in the Letter to the Galatians”, in: F. Postma, K. Spronk and E. Talstra (eds.), The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy: Festschrift for Henk Leene (Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese van de Bijbel en zijn Tradisies Supplement Series 3, Maastricht: Shaker Publishing, 2002), pp. 35–43. (2010) thinks that the Galatians would have understood the expression in a cosmological sense and would not have restricted it to private individual experiences. Grant Macaskill 60 14 M.W. Yeung, “Old Testament Paradoxes in Galatians: Rethinking the Theology of Galatians”, in: J.C. Laansma, G.R. Osborne and R.F. van Neste (eds.), New Testament Theology in Light of the Church’s Mission: Essays in Honor of I. Howard Marshall (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2011), pp. 213–228. (2013) interprets the expression as an indication that Paul regarded the church as the new eschatological temple (with Isaiah as background) in which God restores cosmic order, thereby fulfilling the expectations that Isaiah had about Zion. In a study of “new creation” in Galatians, 2 Corinthians and Ephesians, Mark D. Owens 61 15 S. Bosman, “Paul’s Use of Jewish Traditions”, Tyndale Bulletin 69:1 (2018), pp. 157–160. (2015) argues that the concept was based on an intertextual reading of the Hebrew Scriptures and that Paul used the expression to summarise the redemptive significance of Christ’s death and resurrection. It has anthropological, cosmological and ecclesiological dimensions and should be understood in terms of a primeval-end time (“Urzeit-Endzeit”) typology. On the basis of 6:11–16, 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Romans 8:18–22, Luis Espíndola García 62 16 D.S. Harvey, “Saving Face (εὐπροσωπέω) in Galatia: Concern for Honour in the Argument of Paul’s Letter”, in: J.M. Keady, T.E. Klutz and C.A. Strine (eds.), Scripture as Social Discourse: Social-Scientific Perspectives on Early Jewish and Christian Writings (T & T Clark Biblical Studies, London/New York NY: T & T Clark, 2018), pp. 183–196. https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567676061.ch-012 (2016) links the expression to God’s power to create and re-create. Paul thus used it to refer to the fact that every time a human being receives the gift of salvation from God, a new being is created. Scott J. Hafemann 63 17 C. Keith, “‘In My Own Hand’: Grapho-Literacy and the Apostle Paul”, Biblica 89:1 (2008), pp. 39–58. (2019) draws attention to the close relationship between “new creation” and the notion of the consummation of the covenant in v. 15 and 2 Corinthians 5:17. Hafemann argues that the expression “new creation” summarises Paul’s eschatological soteriology and that his thoughts on “new creation” are closely linked to his views on the “new covenant”. “New creation” is thus inextricably linked to the history of Israel and the move from the old covenant to the new covenant. In a study of Paul and the marginalised, Carla Swafford Works 64 18 J. Hubing, Crucifixion and New Creation: The Strategic Purpose of Galatians 6.11–17 (Library of New Testament Studies 508, London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015). (2020) reads Paul’s references to inheritance from the perspective of the Galatians as a subjugated people whose land the Romans had taken away. For them, the reference to the promises of Abraham and the way in which Paul links it to new life in the Spirit, inheriting the kingdom of God and the dawn of the new creation would indeed have been good news. Chapter 19: Commentaries on Galatians As indicated earlier on in the introduction to the book, commentaries are not discussed in this overview, but a selection of some of the commentaries that were published on the letter is offered: T. Adeyemo (ed.), Africa Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan/WordAlive, 2006). S. Akhtar, The New Testament in Muslim Eyes: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Routledge Reading the Bible in Islamic Contexts 2, London/New York NY: Routledge, 2018). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315448282 M.E. Aymer, C.B. Kittredge and D.A. Sánchez (eds.), Fortress Commentary on the Bible: The New Testament (Minneapolis MN: Fortress, 2014). M.D. Baker, Gálatas: Introducción y Comentario (Comentario Biblico Iberoamericano, Buenos Aires: Ediciones Kairós, 2014). P. Barnes, A Study Commentary on Galatians (Welwyn Garden City: Evangelical Press, 2017). N. Baumert, Der Weg des Trauens: Übersetzung und Auslegung des Briefes an die Galater und des Briefes an die Philipper (Würzburg: Echter, 2009). G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids MI: Baker, 2007). N.E. Bedford, Galatians (Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox, 2016). A. Ben Mordechai, Galatians: A Torah-Based Commentary in First-Century Hebraic Context (Haifa: AAA Printing, 2005). F. Bianchini, Lettera ai Galati (Nuovo Testamento, Roma: Città Nuova, 2009). R. Blank, La Carta a los Gálatas Liberados de la Esclavitud, Llamados a Servir (Saint Louis MO: Editorial Concordia, 2015). B.K. Blount (ed.), True to Our Native Land: An African American New Testament Commentary (Minneapolis MN: Fortress, 2007). G.R. Brunk III, Galatians (Believers Church Bible Commentary, Harrisonburg VA: Herald Press, 2015). G.M. Burge and A.E. Hill (eds.), The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books, 2012). A.M. Buscemi, Lettera ai Galati: Commentario Esegetico (Analecta/Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2004). B. Byrne, Galatians and Romans (Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 2010). D. Chiquete, Carta a los Gálatas (Comentario Para Exégesis y Traducción, Miami FL: Sociedades Bíblicas Unidas, 2009). J.E.A. Chiu (ed.), The Paulist Biblical Commentary (New York NY/Mahwah NJ Paulist, 2018). R.A. Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 9, Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2008, Second edition). C.B. Cousar, Reading Galatians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Reading the New Testament, Macon GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001). L.E. Dahill, L. Schottroff and M.T. Wacker (eds.), Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2012). A.A. Das, Galatians (Concordia Commentary, St Louis MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2014). J.D. Davies, Three Mountains to Freedom: Practice Interpretation of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Practice Interpretation 5, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2016). M.C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary (New Testament Library, Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011). D.A. deSilva, Global Readings: A Sri Lankan Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2011). D.A. deSilva, The Letter to the Galatians (New International Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2018). D. Durken (ed.), The New Collegeville Bible Commentary: New Testament (Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 2009). W. Eckey, Der Galaterbrief: Ein Kommentar (Neukirchener Theologie, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2010). H.-J. Eckstein, Christus in euch: Von der Freiheit der Kinder Gottes. Eine Auslegung des Galaterbriefs (Neukirchener Theologie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017). https://doi.org/10.13109/9783788731809 S. Fausti, La Libertà dei Figli di Dio: Commento alla Lettera ai Galati (Parola di Vita, Milano: Àncora, 2010). G.D. Fee, Galatians: Pentecostal Commentary (Pentecostal Commentary Series, Dorset Deo Publishing, 2007). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004397231 J.A. Ferreira, Gálatas: La Epístola de a Apertura de Fronteras (Bogotá Pontifica Universidad Javeriana, 2014). C. Focant, D. Marguerat and A. Filippi (eds.), Commentario del Nuovo Testamento: Testo Integrale (Testi e Commenti Bologna Dehoniane, 2014). G.I. Gargano, Lettera ai Galati: La Nuova Creazione (Conversazioni Bibliche 6, Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2009). D.B. Garlington, Galatians: An Exposition of Galatians: A Reading from the New Perspective (Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007, 3rd rev. edition). B.R. Gaventa and D. Petersen (eds.), The New Interpreter’s Bible One Volume Commentary (Nashville TN: Abingdon, 2010). T. George, Galatians (Christian Standard Commentary, Nashville TN: Holman, 2020). D. Guest, R. Goss and M. West (eds.), The Queer Bible Commentary (London: SCM, 2006). S. Hahn, The Letters of Saint Paul to the Galatians and to the Ephesians: Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, San Francisco CA: Ignatius Press, 2005). G.W. Hansen, Galatians (IVP New Testament Commentary 9, Downers Grove IL: IVP Academic, 2010). E.F. Harrison, R.K. Rapa and D.A. Hagner, Romans, Galatians (Expositor’s Bible Commentary Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 2017, Revised edition). J.P. Heil, Galatians: Worship for Life by Faith in the Crucified and Risen Lord (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2019). L.A. Jervis, Galatians (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series, Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books, 2011). J.R. Jordan, From Law to Logos: Reading St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Eugene OR: Wipf and Stock, 2017). R.J. Karris, Galatians and Romans (New Collegeville Bible Commentary: New Testament 6, Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 2005). L.E. Keck (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary. Volume Nine: Acts; Introduction to Epistolary Literature; Romans; 1 & 2 Corinthians; Galatians (Nashville TN: Abingdon, 2000). C.S. Keener, Galatians: A Commentary (Grand Rapids MI: Baker, 2019). Y.S. Kim, Rereading Galatians from the Perspective of Paul’s Gospel: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2019). W. Klaiber, Der Galaterbrief (Die Botschaft des Neuen Testaments, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2013). H. le Cornu and J. Shulam, A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Galatians (Jerusalem: Academon, 2005). S. Légasse, L’Épître de Paul aux Galates (Lectio Divina Commentaires 9, Paris: Cerf, 2000). J.-P. Lémonon, L’Épître aux Galates (Commentaire Biblique: Nouveau Testament, Paris: Cerf, 2008). I.C. Levy (transl. & ed.), The Letter to the Galatians (The Bible in Medieval Tradition, Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2011). P.J. Long, Galatians: Freedom through God’s Grace (Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock, 2019). T. Longman III and D.E. Garland (eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 2008, Rev. edition). G. Lyons, Galatians: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary, Kansas City MO: Beacon Hill, 2010). B.J. Malina and J.J. Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul (Minneapolis MN: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2006). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv19cwbcq F.J. Matera, Galatians (Sacra Pagina 9, Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 2007). D. McCarson, Free at Last: The Message of Galatians (San Jose: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2015). J.T. McKinney, Galatians (Truth for Today Commentary, Searcy AR: Resource Publications, 2017). M. Meiser, Galater (Novum Testamentum Patristicum 9, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). R. Meynet, La Lettre aux Galates (Rhétorique Sémitique, Pendé: Gabalda, 2012). D.J. Moo, Galatians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2013). S. Ngewa, Galatians (Africa Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids MI: HippoBooks Zondervan, 2010). G.R. O’Day and D.L. Petersen (eds.), Theological Bible Commentary (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009). P. Oakes, Galatians (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament, Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2015). G.R. Osborne, Galatians: Verse by Verse (Osborne New Testament Commentaries, Bellingham WA: Lexham Press, 2017). F.J.G. Padilla, Gálatas y Efesios (Conozca su Biblia, Minneapolis MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2008). D.V. Palmer and C.A. Dennis, Galatians: A Concise Caribbean Commentary (Maitland FL: Xulon, 2016). S. Pérez Millos, Comentario Exegético al Texto Griego del Nuevo Testamento: Gálatas (Viladecavalls: Editorial Clie, 2013). A. Pitta, Lettera ai Galati: Introduzione, Versione e Commento (Scritti Delle Origini Cristiane, Bologna 2000). J.K. Riches, Galatians through the Centuries (Blackwell Bible Commentaries, Malden MA/Oxford: Blackwell, 2008). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118476369 S. Romanello, Lettera ai Galati (Dabar, Logos, Parola, Padova: Messaggero, 2005). P.G. Ryken, Galatians (Reformed Expository Commentary, Phillipsburg NJ: P & R Publishing, 2005). D. Sänger, “Der Galaterbrief”, in: E.-M. Becker, F.W. Horn and D.-A. Koch (eds.), Der “Kritisch-exegetische Kommentar” in seiner Geschichte: H.A.W. Meyers KEK von seiner Gründung 1829 bis heute (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Sonderband, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018). https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666516405.245 T. Schirrmacher, Law or Spirit? Galatians between Legalism and Antinomianism (Hamburg: Reformatorischer Verlag Beese, 2001). T.R. Schreiner, Galatians (Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 2011). F.F. Segovia and R.S. Sugirtharajah (eds.), A Postcolonial Commentary on the New Testament Writings (The Bible and Postcolonialism 13, London/New York ny: T & T Clark, 2007). M.L. Soards and D.J. Pursiful, Galatians (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary, Macon GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2015). J.B. Tucker and A. Kuecker (eds.), Galatians (T & T Clark Social Identity Commentary on the New Testament London/New York NY/Oxford: T & T Clark, 2020). https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567667878.0011 L.M. Vance. Galatians 1 & 2: Exposition, Commentary, Application (Pensacola FL: Vance Publications, 2010.) A. Vanhoye and P.S. Williamson, Galatians (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2019). P. von der Osten-Sacken, Der Brief an die Gemeinden in Galatien (Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 9, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2019). E.J. Waggoner, Endlich Frei! Ein Vers-für-Vers-Kommentar zum Galaterbrief (Freiamt: NewStartCenter Treffpunkt für ein gesundes Leben, 2017). F.W. Weidmann, Galatians (Westminster Bible Companion, Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012). J.J. Williams, Galatians (New Covenant Commentary Series, Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2020). B.C. Wintle (ed.), South Asia Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids MI/Rajasthan: Zondervan/Open Door, 2015). B. Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (London/New York NY: T & T Clark International, 2004). R.D. Witherup, Galatians: Life in the New Creation: A Spiritual-Pastoral Reading (Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press, 2020). N.T. Wright, Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians (London: SPCK/Westminster John Knox Press, 2004). 19 J.K. Cheol, “Who Are the Beneficiaries of the Peace Benediction in Galatians 6:16?”, Korean Evangelical New Testament Studies 15:4 (2016), pp. 734–759. https://doi.org/10.24229/kents.2016.15.4.005 20 S. Reece, Paul’s Large Letters: Paul’s Autographic Subscriptions in the Light of Ancient Epistolary Conventions (Library of New Testament Studies 561, London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2017). https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567669094 21 D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.190, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157055-1 22 S. Tsang, From Slaves to Sons: A New Rhetoric Analysis on Paul’s Slave Metaphors in His Letter to the Galatians (Studies in Biblical Literature 81, New York NY: Peter Lang, 2005), pp. 63–73. 23 J.A. Kelhoffer, “Suffering as Defense of Paul’s Apostolic Authority in Galatians and 2 Corinthians 11”, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 74 (2009), pp. 127–143. Also available in: J.A. Kelhoffer, Conceptions of “Gospel” and Legitimacy in Early Christianity (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.324, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), pp. 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-152993-1 24 D. Sänger, “Literarische Strategien der Polemik im Galaterbrief”, in: O. Wischmeyer and L. Scornaienchi (eds.), Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literatur: Texte und Kontexte (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 170, Berlin/New York NY: De Gruyter, 2011), pp. 155–181. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223545.2.155 25 M. Afrențoae, “The Pride in the Cross Signaling the New Creation”, Romanian Journal of Artistic Creativity 4:3 (2016), pp. 32–42. 26 J.W. Barrier, “Marks of Oppression: A Postcolonial Reading of Paul’s stigmata in Galatians 6:17”, Biblical Interpretation 16:4 (2008), pp. 336–362. https://doi.org/10.1163/156851508X329656 27 A.N. Parker, “One Womanist’s View of Racial Reconciliation in Galatians”, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 34:2 (2018), pp. 23–40. https://doi.org/10.2979/jfemistudreli.34.2.04 28 B. Oestreich, Performanzkritik der Paulusbriefe (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.296, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), pp. 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-152280-2 English version: B. Oestreich, Performance Criticism of the Pauline Letters (Biblical Performance Criticism Series 14, Eugene OR: Cascade Books, 2016). 29 C. Ensminger, “Paul the Stigmatic”, Journal of Higher Criticism 8:2 (2001), pp. 183–209. 30 H. Klein, “Die Selbstverteidigung des Gottgesandten bei Paulus und Johannes”, Sacra Scripta: Journal of the Centre for Biblical Studies 8:2 (2010), pp. 175–184. 31 M. Wolter, “God and the World in the Epistles of Paul”, In die Skriflig 47:2 (2013), pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v47i2.700 32 M.C. de Boer, “Cross and Cosmos in Galatians”, in: D.J. Downs and M.L. Skinner (eds.), The Unrelenting God: God’s Action in Scripture: Essays in Honor of Beverly Roberts Gaventa (Grand Rapids MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2013), pp. 207–225. 33 P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: J. Eckert, M. Schmidl and H. Steichele (eds.), Pneuma und Gemeinde: Christsein in der Tradition des Paulus und Johannes: Festschrift für Josef Hainz zum 65. Geburtstag (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2001), pp. 15–32. Also available in: P. Dschulnigg, “Überlegungen zu Bedeutung und Funktion der Geistaussagen im Galaterbrief”, in: B. Kowalski, R. Höffner and J. Verheyden (eds.), Studien zu Einleitungsfragen und zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Gesammelte Aufsätze von Peter Dschulnigg (Biblical Tools and Studies 9, Leuven/Paris/Walpole MA: Peeters, 2010), pp. 355–370. 34 S. Butticaz, “Vers une anthropologie universelle? La crise galate: Fragile gestion de l’ethnicité juive”, New Testament Studies 61:4 (2015), pp. 505–524. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688515000168 35 E.O. Oyemomi, “The Centrality of Pauline Anthropology: An Overview of the Book to the Galatians via Analytical Exegesis of Gal. 6:11–18”, BTSK Insight 16:2 (2019), pp. 146–170. 36 A.J. Köstenberger, “The Identity of the Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16”, Faith and Mission 19:1 (2001), pp. 3–24. 37 R.H. Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.184, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 160–180. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157300-2 38 C.W. Cowan, “Context Is Everything: ‘The Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16”, The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 14:3 (2010), pp. 78–85. 39 M. Müller, “‘Guds Israel’ i Gal 6,16 og ‘Hele Israel’ i Rom 11,26: Til Spørgsmålet om den Kristne Menighed Som det Sande Israel i det Nye Testamente og den Ældste Kirke”, Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 78:3 (2015), pp. 282–298. https://doi.org/10.7146/dtt.v78i3.105761 40 O.J. Filtvedt, “‘God’s Israel’ in Galatians 6.16: An Overview and Assessment of the Key Arguments”, Currents in Biblical Research 15:1 (2016), pp. 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993Χ15610840 For a critical assessment of Filtvedt’s arguments, see J. Lambrecht, In Search of Meaning: Collected Notes on the New Testament (2014–2017) (Balti: Scholars’ Press, 2017), pp. 482–486. 41 M. Bachmann, “Bemerkungen zur Auslegung zweier Genitivverbindungen des Galaterbriefs: ‘Werke des Gesetzes’ (Gal 2,16 u.ö.) und ‘Israel Gottes’ (Gal 6,16)”, in: M. Bachmann and B. Kollmann (eds.), Umstrittener Galaterbrief: Studien zur Situierung und Theologie des Paulus-Schreibens (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 106, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010), pp. 95–118. Also available in: M. Bachmann, Von Paulus zur Apokalypse – und weiter: Exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Neuen Testament (samt englischsprachigen Summaries) (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 91, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 277–295. See also earlier: M. Bachmann, “Verus Israel: Ein Vorschlag zu einer ‘mengentheoretischen’ Neubeschreibung

New Testament Studies 48:4 (2002), pp. 500–512, der betreffenden paulinischen Terminologie”, , and M. Bachmann, Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief: Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus (NTOA 40, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), pp. 159–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688502000309

42 S.G. Eastman, “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-Reading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9–11”, New Testament Studies 56:3 (2010), pp. 367–395. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0028688510000056 43 C. Zimmermann, “Kirche und Israel Gottes im Galaterbrief”, in: M. Witte and T. Pilger (eds.), Mazel tov: Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zum Verhältnis von Christentum und Judentum: Festschrift anlässlich des 50. Geburtstages des Instituts Kirche und Judentum (Studien zu Kirche und Israel. Neue Folge Bd. 1, Leipzig Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012), pp. 121–140. 44 P. la G. du Toit, “Reading Galatians 6:16 in Line with Paul’s Contrast between the New Aeon in Christ and the Old Aeon before the Christ Event”, Stellenbosch Theological Journal 2:2 (2016), pp. 203–225. https://doi.org/10.17570/stj.2016.v2n2.a10 45 P. la G. du Toit, God’s Saved Israel: Reading Romans 11.26 and Galatians 6.16 in Terms of the New Identity in Christ and the Spirit (Eugene OR: Pickwick, 2019). 46 Ibid., p. 345. Du Toit’s emphasis. 47 J. Lambrecht, In Search of Meaning: Collected Notes on the New Testament (2014–2017) (Balti: Scholars’ Press, 2017), pp. 477–481. 48 D.J. Moo, Galatians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2013), pp. 398–403. 49 R.J. Korner, The Origin and Meaning of ekklēsia in the Early Jesus Movement (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 98, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2017), pp. 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004344990 50 J. Pratt, “The ‘Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16”, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 23 (2018), pp. 59–75. 51 A. Sherwood, Paul and the Restoration of Humanity in Light of Ancient Jewish Traditions (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 82, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2013), pp. 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004235472 52 J.D. Stark, “What Makes Jewish Scripture Christian?”, Stone-Campbell Journal 19:2 (2016), pp. 219–237. 53 J.A. Davies, “What Does Count?”, The Reformed Theological Review 71:2 (2012), pp. 77–89. 54 L.W. Hurtado, “Jesus’ Death as Paradigmatic in the New Testament”, Scottish Journal of Theology 57:4 (2004), pp. 413–433. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003693060400033X 55 J.A. Adewuya, “Paul, Crucifixion, and Sanctification in Galatians”, in: S.J. Land, R.D. Moore and J.C. Thomas (eds.), Passover, Pentecost and Parousia: Studies in Celebration of the Life and Ministry of R. Hollis Gause (Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 36, Leiden/Boston MA: Brill, 2010), pp. 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004397125_008 56 M.V. Hubbard, New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 119, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 131–232. 57 D.J. Moo, “Creation and New Creation”, Bulletin for Biblical Research 20:1 (2010), pp. 39–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/26423963 58 R.J. Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.282, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151625-2 59 T.R. Jackson, New Creation in Paul’s Letters: A Study of the Historical and Social Setting (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.272, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), pp. 84–114. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151615-3 60 G. Macaskill, Union with Christ in the New Testament (New York NY/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 225–227. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684298.001.0001 61 M.D. Owens, As It Was in the Beginning: An Intertextual Analysis of New Creation in Galatians, 2 Corinthians and Ephesians (Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, 2015). 62 L. Espíndola García, “La Nueva Creación en el Pensamiento de Pablo”, Veritas 35 (2016), pp. 217–233. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-92732016000200010 63 S.J. Hafemann, Paul: Servant of the New Covenant: Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 1.435, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), pp. 300–343. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-157702-4 64 C.S. Works, The Least of These: Paul and the Marginalized (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2020), pp. 87–107.