Galatians 3:23-28; A Struggling Apostle

"Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise."

Introduction--Paul's Struggle

When people normally teach or preach on this passage, they rush to Gal. 3:28--"There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." It is a lofty sentiment, made more lofty because it is on the lips of Paul, who has often been vilified by various groups because of his supposed intolerance or bigotry. But the point of these two essays is that this passage needs to be understood in the context of Paul's own spiritual development and as he is trying to solve a potentially insoluble intellectual puzzle--the role of the Jewish law for Christians in a Gentile world. Though this topic isn't a "big hit" in the 21st century, it is crucial to understand if we want to "do justice" to the sentiment in 3:28.

Most scholars see the Epistle to the Galatians as Paul's earliest letter (early 50s). It is, therefore, Paul's first (and first of many) attempt to handle the hot-button issue of the role of the Jewish Torah in the life of the Gentile Christian. This issue was the 1st century's homosexual ordination and abortion all rolled up into one issue. Just as the reality of slavery hung over the national life of the United States from 1789-1863, with compromises and false solutions, with people who celebrated "The Union" and with those who claimed that the Federal Constitution was a pact with the devil, so the reality of the Jewish Law was an issue that would hang over the life of the first century Christians for years.

It had to do, basically, with whether one had to "become a Jew" before "becoming a Christian." For the Jews, the first recipients of the Gospel message, this really wasn't a problem at all. They were already Jews. But when Gentiles came on board, the problem was heightened. Did these "Gentile sinners," as Paul described them (tongue in cheek) on one occasion, have to become circumcised and take on the Jewish ritual law before becoming Christians? Or, was there another way into Christian faith? Before seeing how Paul answered this question in Gal. 3, I need a brief digression on the way new religions develop.

Beginning with a Theoretical Statement about Religion

Sociologists of religion inform us that when a new religion or belief system grows out of an old one, there is frequently a predictable evolution from the old to the new religion. First there are the "old rules" (life under the old regime). Then, there are "no rules," where you are "completely free" under the new religion. Then, after a few years, there are "new rules," where someone sits down, thinks about life with the new religion for a while, sees how the new movement develops and then seeks somewhat of an intellectual accommodation with the old religion even while the distance between old and new is still emphasized.

This "old rules," "no rules," and "new rules" paradigm is also a helpful template to understand some non-religious movements in our modern world, such as the gay rights movement. At first, in the 1960s and before, there were the "old rules"--homosexuality was considered a deviation; it had to be practiced in secret; there was a social stigma attached to it. Then, after the gay pride movement hit in the 1970s, the "old rules" were thrown off. Those who were "in the closet" began to parade down Main Street. Sexual ethics went out the window. Free and unrestrained sexual expression was really the order of the day. There were "no rules." But even in the early 1980s, when the AIDS virus had just been isolated, even before that gruesome disease sliced out of our culture some of the best and brightest of a generation of homosexual men, there was talk about "new rules" that had to obtain if the "movement" was to gain respectability and a broader hearing in America. The AIDS epidemic in America then forced a new set of rules on the gay community more quickly and violently than it would otherwise have wanted. Nevertheless, the template of "old," "no," and "new" helps us explain the historical development of the gay rights movement in our day.

Back to Paul and Galatians

These two ideas, of the role of the law for early Christans and the "old rules," "no rules," and "new rules" paradigm, help us understand what Paul is about in Galatians and especially in ch. 3. The argument in Galatians is Paul's strongest, and most radical, statement that one need not become a Jew first before becoming a Christian, and that the Jewish law, rather than being an eternally helpful, actually is only a temporary historical expedient given by God until Christ was revealed. Galatians is the classic statement of the "no rules" philosophy, a philosophy made so vigorous because of the viciousness of attacks on Paul by his opponents. Thus, under the "no rules" paradigm, if preachers came into Galatia after Paul had left, and they emphasized the centrality of Jewish law for Christians, Paul had no choice but to attack them vigorously, and berate the Galatians. This two-fold strategy is what Paul does in Galatians, while Gal. 3 sees him only attack the congreation.

So, he berates his congregation. "You foolish Galatians" (v. 1). They had either fallen under the influence of these "law preachers" or had given them too much berth for Paul's comfort. Paul doesn't describe his opponents or their specific doctrinal system. In fact, he probably doesn't care to "nuance" their argument carefully. Paul is in his "black and white" stage of faith, and anything that tends to weaken the sole importance of faith in Christ is to be condemned. This tone then pervades his argument in ch. 3. He tends to speak in broad oppositional categories, categories which will loosen up considerably when Paul gets to Romans (one of his last letters). The two "big categories" for Paul are "the law" and "Christ." They are completely opposites in his mind. Synonymns for "the law" are "death" or "slavery" or "sin." Synonymns for "Christ" are "joy" and "freedom" and new life." You can either do works of the law or you can believe in Christ. You have to choose. You can't have two feet in both boats, so to speak. That is Paul's argument in Gal. 3:1-5.

But then Paul begins to tie himself up in intellectual knots with an argument that I don't consider very convincing (perhaps that is why the Lectionary-makers avoid Gal. 3:6-22). In short, Paul will argue that the law testifies to its own obsolescence by pointing to two things: (1) the principle of faith as the basic principle of religion; and (2) Christ's crucifixion. He points to the former by the story of Abraham (3:6-9). Abraham believed. Faith was therefore essential for Abraham. Those who believe today are the blessed with Abraham who believed. Belief is central to the Bible. That is what Paul is trying to argue.

Of course, one thing that Paul doesn't say is that any good law-following, Torah-loving, first century Jew would also have said that faith is central to his/her religion. Jews of the first century would have rejected Paul's facile opposition between faith and the law. Their point then, and the point of Judaism today, is that faith and the law are compatible categories. Indeed, one follows the Jewish law because one believes in God. Law is the expression of a merciful God, an indication of God's will here on earth. The law doesn't lead into bondage; it is a gracious gift of God assuring the people's identity and freedom irrespective of political realities for the Jews at any particular moment.

I am about halfway through my argument. I will get to the passage--in this essay.

2714