Exegesis of Galatians 3:10-14

John Fraiser

April 2005

 

When one begins to survey the wealth of scholarly literature written on Galatians 3, s/he quickly finds that there is a dissonance of confusion and disagreement among Pauline scholars on questions such as who is under the curse of the law? Jew or Gentile? What does it mean to be under the law’s curse? Is this a potential curse or an actual curse? What does it mean to be “ὅσοι γὰρ ἔργων νόμου” and to whom is Paul referring? How does Paul mean “Christ became a curse on our behalf?” What is Paul’s method of Old Testament usage in this text?

This is but a sampling of the questions that arise from this text. Each commentator often expresses his/her answers to these questions in polarity to another commentator. Thus, for example, on one hand, many commentators defend that the law is unable to save because of human inability to obey it, while on the other hand, a seemingly equal number of commentators reject this interpretation believing that the law cannot save simply because it requires doing and is therefore contrary to faith. The commentators are not as far from each other as they would have their readers believe. These two conclusions on Paul’s view of the law are, by and large, complimentary, but are nevertheless set forth by the exegetes as though they were contradictory. It is plausible to conclude that the law cannot save for both reasons, that is, because the law is contrary to faith as well as because man cannot obey it. This scenario of unnecessary polarization occurs on several of the key interpretative issues in Galatians 3:10-14 suggesting that the passage is more cryptic than it really is.

In addition to this unnecessary polarization, commentators frequently lay out an exegetical issue as though there can only be two options available to the interpreter, when there is much to suggest other possible readings. Thus, for example, when Paul speaks of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου commentators consider that he has in view either Jews (the most common interpretation) or Gentiles, and arguments are cast back and forth for each one’s respective opinion. Yet, there is good reason to think that Paul is not thinking simply of either Jew or Gentile but rather anyone who seeks to observe the law—whether Jew or Gentile. Thus, when a Gentile converts to Judaism, they become “those of the works of the law.” By examining the unnecessary polarities of the commentators and the strict narrowing of the exegetical options, several time-worn, textual controversies that shroud the passage in mystery and confusion can move closer to a resolution.¹

Progression of Logic in Gal 3:10-14

Before moving to defend the exegetical decisions made here, it is perhaps best to offer a broad overview of the proposed interpretation of Galatians 3:10-14 as a guide to the conclusions of this paper.

Paul does not regard all humanity nor simply ethnic Israel as ἐξ ἔργων νόμου but only those who seek to observe the law. This includes mostly Jews but some Gentiles as well. Those who seek to observe the law are cursed because they are under obligation to observe all of the law and not just some of it. They are cursed because they fail to do the law. Paul then turns to blame the reason for the curse not only on the doer’s inability, but also on the law because it is not of faith. It is not possible that anyone could be justified by the law, because it conflicts with the reality that it is only the righteous by faith who will be justified.

Furthermore, with the advent of Christ, a new age has come in which he redeems from the curse what was previously unredeemed by becoming the curse itself. Though this is a dubious statement, Paul appears to understand the Christ-curse as the identity he claimed on behalf of the ones who seek to observe the law. He becomes a curse by means of the cross. As a result of removing this curse, the Gentiles are now able to share in the blessing of Abraham (to be understood as being the promise of salvation as the sons of God). Also, as a result, a new age has come in which through faith, both Jew and Gentile are now able to receive the Spirit.

Familial Imagery in Galatians

Throughout the letter, Paul repeatedly uses familial imagery. He speaks of “God the Father” (1:1, 3), Christ as God’s Son (1:15; 2:20; 4:4, 6), believers as “sons of Abraham” (3:7, 29), believers as brothers (3:15; 4:31; 5:13; 6:1), Christ as the descendant of Abraham (3:16) and believers as “sons of God” (3:26). He builds on the analogy of a child-heir (4:1-3), calls the Galatians his children (4:19), develops a lengthy analogy of the children of the slave woman (Hagar) which corresponds to earthly Jerusalem and the sons of the free woman (presumably Sarah) which corresponds to “Jerusalem above” which is our Mother (4:22-31).

Under the surface there appears to be even more familial imagery that Paul is alluding to. In 3:1 Paul asks, “O foolish Galatians who has bewitched you.” Commentators have long admitted the difficulty of interpreting this phrase in its context. Paul’s use of βάσκαινω is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament, though it has a broad use outside of the New Testament which is where we must look if we are to understand its meaning. The LXX uses it in Deut 28:53-57:

You will eat the offspring of your body—the flesh of your sons and your daughters whom the Lord your God gave you, in your distress and the affliction with which your enemies afflict you. The tender and very delicate man among you will cast the evil eye (baskanei to ophthalmo) on his brother, and on the wife in his bosom, and the remaining children which may be left with him, so as not to give one of them any of the flesh of his children which he is eating…And the tender and very delicate woman among you, whose foot never ventured to tread the ground because of her delicacy and tenderness, will cast the evil eye (baskanei to ophthalmo) on her husband in her bosom, and on her son, and her daughter, and the afterbirth which comes out between her thighs, and the child which she bore, for she will eat them secretly, in her need of all things, in your distress and your affliction with which your enemies will afflict you in all your cities.

This passage comes as part of the climax of the Deuteronomic curse to which Paul makes reference to in 3:10. Paul assumes a great deal of familiarity with the Torah on the part of his audience. When he speaks of “as many as are of the works of the law” are ὑπὸ κατάραν, he does not supply the content of κατάραν. Thus, it appears that Paul assumes that the Galatians are familiar with his understanding of κατάραν, and that it needs no further explanation. Its content is presumably the Deuteronomic curse, of which Deut 28:53-57 functions as one manifestation of the curse. In Deut 28, there are two references to “casting the evil eye”: 1) A man “casts the evil eye” on his brother and his wife, because he is greedy to eat the flesh of his children and, 2) a woman “casts the evil eye” on her husband and on her children and eats her children in secret. There are many surprising parallels between the relational pictures in Galatians and both of these references to the evil eye. “In Galatians, we find that Paul characterizes the other missionaries as both miserly and greedy, like the father and mother in Deuteronomy. Thus in 4.17 he warns the Galatians that ‘They eagerly seeks you, not for good, but they wish to shut you out, that you may seek them’.”² This use corresponds closely with the first use of baskaivnw where the man casts the evil eye on his brother and wife in greed for the flesh of his children. Later in 6:12-13 Paul writes that the Judaizers are greedy for the flesh of the Galatians, for their own gain not for the gain of the circumcised. This evokes the picture of the greedy parents who lust to eat the flesh of their children and “cast the evil eye on them.”

Against this backdrop, Paul asks his foolish and immature audience who has “cast the evil eye” on them. This peculiar use of βάσκαινω in 3:1 would have most likely conjured up vivid mental images for Paul’s audience of the Deuteronomic curse being manifested in the Judaizers. Paul’s charge of foolishness and question about reaching maturity in 3:3 makes good sense if set in comparison to a curse in which children never reach maturity. “Like the children of the accursed parents in Deut. 28.53-57, the children of the law-inscribing mission will never reach the maturity and freedom of coming into their inheritance. Rather, the horrific results of the curse are being acted out metaphorically in their very midst. When they ‘bite and devour one another’ (5.15).”³ Though it is ultimately impossible to say for sure whether the Galatian readers were familiar enough to detect this intertextual echo, “it is clear from Paul’s other explicit intertextual allusions throughout the letter that he assumes such competence on the part of his listeners.”⁴ Understood in the context of Deut 28, Paul’s use of baskaivnw appears to be less peculiar than previously thought.

Story line in Galatians 3

It is not important to explore this subject to great extent, but something of the context of 3:10-14 deserves a word of comment. Paul is weaving together several stories throughout Galatians. This is perhaps his most narrative epistle considering how much storytelling plays a part in his argument. Paul begins by mentioning the Christ-narrative “who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil age” (1:4). Next he moves to a lengthy account of his personal conversion history (1:11-2:10), filling in the story with enough historical details to sketch a rough timeline of his conversion when compared with Acts. Though it may not seem like it at first glance, chapter 2 is entirely narrative. The seemingly instructive section of chapter 2 (2:15-21) almost certainly belongs to Paul’s address to Peter at Antioch.⁵ Once one moves to chapter 3 it may appear that the narrative elements are not as clear as in the previous chapters, but this is only because Paul has switched narratives by moving to the discuss the Galatians own conversion story. He says that Christ has been portrayed as crucified before their eyes (3:1). He makes mention of their having received the Spirit (3:2-3), and references them having suffered many things (3:4). Now someone has bewitched them (3:1). In the next section, Paul reaches all the way back to Abraham and traces his narrative, using it as the paradigm for conversion, and in the rest of chapter 3 as well as chapter 4 Paul continues to give instruction through means of story line.

It should not be surprising then to discover that even our present passage, 3:10-14 has its own story line of redemption.⁶ Paul begins with the curse of the law in Deuteronomy (3:10), moving next to being justified by faith referenced in Habakkuk (3:11). Then he centers on Christ’s crucifixion (3:13-14) which inaugurated the next stage of the gospel going to the Gentiles and finally the coming of the Spirit (3:14).

Exegesis of Gal 3:10-14

The previous emphasis on Paul’s familial imagery, and story line will be brought to bear upon the exegesis of Gal 3:10-14. Several exegetical issues can be better understood in light of the above observations.

Gal 3:10

ὅσοι γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου. Whatever we say about verse 10, it has to be said in harmony with v. 13 where Paul says that Christ has redeemed humas from the curse of the law. If one reads humas to mean both Jew and Gentile then when Paul speaks of those who are ἐξ ἔργων νόμου being under a curse, he must have in view the same group that is both under a curse and redeemed from the curse. J. Louis Martyn uses humas to argue that, “the cosmic Law pronounced its curse on the whole of humanity, Gentile and Jew alike.”⁷ While this is certainly theologically true, it does not follow that this textually true in Galatians 3. If all are under the same pronouncement in this text, then how are we to make sense of Paul’s need to use the substantive pronoun ὅσοι? He qualifies those who are “of the works of the law” with ὅσοι limiting his emphasis here only to “as many as are of the works of the law.” Furthermore, it is difficult to see how Paul could understand all humanity as being “of the works of the law.”

            The most common interpretation, however is that ἐξ ἔργων νόμου refers to ethnic practicing Jews. There is trouble with this interpretation as well. If Paul only has ethnicity in view it would be difficult to see how it would matter for the Galatians, since they are Gentiles.Though the commentators do not entertain it, there is clearly a third option. The phrase is better understood as having neither a universal human reference nor a strictly ethnic one, but rather taken at face value, “as many as are of the works of the law.” This would include anyone who sought to observe the law, whether Jew or Gentile. Thus, a Gentile who converted would actually become “of the works of the law.”

Aside from the group Paul has in mind, there is also the issue of Paul’s meaning of ἔργων νόμου. Most translations render ἐξ ἔργων νόμου adverbially. To do this they have to supply the action verb. Thus the translation usually comes out as “as many as rely on the works of the law.”⁸ It should not be surprising to find that the many commentators—both former and recent—also interpret “works of the law” in v. 10 with a similar adverbial sense.⁹ Textually, it is difficult to see how this could be warranted.¹⁰ The most natural verb to supply when it is absent from a text is not an action verb but rather a being verb, which fits without any difficulty here. Also, such an interpretation piles more weight onto the phrase than it can bear. The phrase can be interpreted more simply without the need to supply an action verb. There nothing in this phrase about self-justification or a dependence on the law for righteousness, which means that those who render it in this manner, must import the meaning from outside the phrase. Perhaps this is done simply with the presupposition that Paul is combating the issue of works righteousness and thus “works of the law” must refer to someone relying on works for their righteousness. For Longenecker at least, he builds this interpretation on the use of gar which he says “suggests that what follows in vv 10-14 is meant to be explanatory of the dichotomy implicit in vv 6-9 between relying on faith for righteousness and relying on one’s own observance of the law.”¹¹ But as we will see, Paul’s scope of the curse is wider than simply those who rely on works to be righteous—though it certainly includes them.

On the other side of the issue are those who believe that obtaining righteousness is not in view at all in Paul’s phrase ἐξ ἔργων νόμου. It is there contention that works of the law should only “denote particularly those obligations of the law which were reckoned especially crucial in the maintenance of covenant righteousness,”¹² and that the phrase is “a purely neutral description of Torah-observance.”¹³ The confusion may not be as great as the commentaries would have us believe. There is neutral ground here. To a certain extent, Dunn and Barclay are probably right to understand ἐξ ἔργων νόμου as they do if looked at from the perspective of the Judaizers and their Galatian converts. The Judaizers likely thought that they were only pursuing the Torah for the purpose of life inside the covenant; for them “Torah” was probably understood neutrally. But it would be difficult to make the case that Paul understood works of the law in a neutral way when we consider that he places all those who seek to observe it under a curse. Paul turns from just having spoken about blessing in Abraham to now discuss cursing under the law. This no doubt came as a surprise to the Galatians since they obviously expected God’s blessing—whether for entrance into the covenant or for life in the covenant—to rest on them as a result of obeying the law. However, Paul wants to remind them that God’s blessing only ever comes through Christ or it does not come at all—quite the opposite results in fact—a curse. Thus, those who want to see in this passage works righteous are right to an extent as well. Though the Galatians were simply trying to live out the expectations of the covenant, Paul understands this to be a desperate attempt to find righteousness outside of Christ.

Though the commentators polarize each other with this issue, there is a place for us to hear them both.¹⁴ The difference is largely perspectival. Paul’s perspective fits quite closely with those who see works righteousness as the issue, while the Judaizers’ and their sympathizers’ perspective seems to more closely parallel that of Dunn, Barclay and Sanders.

We may conclude then that in his use of the phrase ὅσοι γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, Paul refers neither to all humanity nor simply ethnic practicing Jews, but rather somewhere in between he means anyone who observes the works of the law, Jew or Gentile. This is precisely the issue in Galatia; the law-observant Judaizers seek to turn Christian Gentiles in law-observers as well.

ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν. Paul’s familial imagery becomes quite significant for understanding this phrase. If ἐβάσκανεν in 3:1 is in fact an allusion to the Deuteronomic curse then we have here a stronger indication that Paul is not just borrowing merely the notion of cursing from Deuteronomy but is also assuming something of the historical context of Deuteronomy as well. Furthermore, when we consider that he cites Deuteronomy twice more in this chapter, it becomes even more apparent that Paul sees the Galatian controversy as an experience of the Deuteronomic curse. The Judaizers and their Galatian sympathizers are functioning as a covenant family experiencing life under a curse rather than the blessing they expected. Paul’s strong dependence on Deuteronomy argues against several commentators’ conclusions that Paul considers the curse to be only impending or potential but not actual. “The verse cited speaks nowhere about an event that has already occurred, but rather offers an advance announcement regarding the circumstances under which such a ‘curse’ might be effective. Its clear aim is to deter the type of behaviour that might lead to its actualization.”¹⁵ But if Paul is implying the Deuteronomic curse when he says that someone has cursed them, then it is not possible that Paul could intend ὑπὸ κατάραν as a “potential” curse, the curse would be actual, being played out in the work of the Judaizers on the Galatians. Paul is borrowing from the actual historical conclusion of the Deuteronomic warning in Deut 27:26. One only needs to look at the story of Israel to see that what both Deuteronomy and Paul are saying is true.¹⁶ Paul cannot be thinking of a “threatening” curse given the reality of this curse in Jewish history and given his language that suggests the “evil eye” has been cast upon the Galatians.¹⁷ Furthermore, the historical and textual support argue against Sanders thesis that: Deut 27:26 was “the only verse Paul could find that brought together the ideas of ‘law’ and ‘curse’ that he wanted to set over against the ‘faith/blessing’ association that he had already established in his earlier citations of Genesis 15.6 and 12.3 (vv. 6 and 8). Thus the verbal link with the preceding citations is primary, the actual content of Deut 27.26 secondary.”¹⁸ Paul has in mind both the actual curse in Israel’s history and the actual curse in the Galatian controversy.

            This raises the question of the relationship between being ἐξ ἔργων νόμου and being ὑπὸ κατάραν. Why are those of the works of the law cursed? Is it because they are unable to fulfill it? Is it because they do not seek the law by faith? Is it because the law only curses and can never bless? To answer this question we must examine the reason Paul concludes those observers of the law are cursed.

γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά. Scholars have debated back and forth on how this verse functions in Paul’s argument. At least this much is clear: he intends the γὰρ to be the support or proof of what he has just said. The law-observers are under a curse because they actually do not observe all that the law requires. While this appears quite straightforward, there are many more questions to answer. Do they fail because they observe faithfully only certain parts, or was it because they attempted to observe the whole law but fail? Does Paul consider full obedience to the law possible, or is it because it is impossible to obey that they are under the curse? This is arguably the most debated issue in Gal 3:10-14. We can at least begin by answering the question of whether the Judaizers sought to observe the whole law or only part of the law. Most likely the Judaizers only sought to observe certain parts of the law considering Paul’s statement in 6:13, “Those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves…” They were being choosy about what they sought to observe. This is suggested as well in 5:3 where Paul says that anyone who receives circumcision is under obligation to keep the whole law. Thus, that Paul expected the whole law to be kept (3:10b) and that the Judaizers attempted to observe only certain parts should be clear.¹⁹ However, the question remains whether or not this is the reason for the curse. Are they cursed because they do not keep the whole law or is there another reason? Once again the commentators set this forth as though their perspectives were mutually exclusive.

Those who argue that the curse is the result of not keeping the whole law often speak of an implied premise in Paul. For them Paul’s argument is a simple syllogism:

1. All who do not keep the law perfectly are cursed (Deut 27:26).

2. No one can keep the law perfectly (implied premise).

3. Therefore, all who are of the works of the law are under a curse (Gal 3:10a).

Those who argue for an implied premise offer several reasons for the validity of this interpretation:

1. Without the implied premise, Paul’s statement would not make sense.²⁰

2. The MT does not contain the word “all.” Paul is building his argument closer to the Septuagint, where πᾶσιν is found because it fits his purposes here.²¹

3. The purpose of the law is to produce transgressions (3:19), Paul can only say this if it is assumed that humans cannot possibly obey it.²²

4. “Implied propositions are a common feature of human language, and they are not surprising in Paul since he did not write in formal syllogisms.”²³

Those who reject the implied premise often do so because they reject the notion that Paul is dealing here with works salvation. Thus, nearly all of those who follow the “New Perspective on Paul” reject it. They advance several reason for rejecting an implied premise:

1. To be of the works of the law does not require perfect obedience. It simply means that you seek to observe the law and failure in the covenant is provided for by the Jewish sacrificial system.

2. Paul’s argument is that the law is contrary to faith, regardless of whether it can be obeyed or not. Thus Paul would have no need to make the argument for perfect obedience if it is irrelevant.²⁴

3. Paul nowhere in the context, or in the letter taken as a whole, or even in the corpus of his other letters says that complete observance of the Law is impossible.²⁵

4. The curse falls on all who restrict the grace and promise of God in nationalistic terms, who treat the law as a boundary mark” not those who fail to obey whole law.²⁶

Once again, the commentators are not as distant from each other as they suggest. Several of their views are quite complimentary.²⁷ For example:

1. Even if Paul has in view human inability to obey all the law, this does not exclude him from also making the argument that the law was never meant to save in the first place. Indeed he makes this very argument (3:12, 21). On this point neither perspective excludes the other’s.

2. If Paul does, in fact, allow for the possibility of perfect obedience, it would not contradict an implied premise that humans cannot keep the law perfectly. Paul’s argument is that no one does keep the law, not that it is impossible that they could. Were someone to keep the law perfectly, it would not secure salvation for them, it would only reveal that they never needed salvation in the first place, because they are sinless.²⁸ So even though maintaining the potential for someone to obey the law perfectly is quite pointless, it nevertheless does not contradict an implied premise.

3. Harkening back to an point made above, from the perspective of Judaism (and the Judaizers) “works of the law” may have only meant observing that which the law requires in order to continue to live in the covenant, but for Paul to feel the need to observe the law, whether for salvation or for life in salvation places one under the curse because any attempt to observe the law—for whatever reason—brings a curse. Thus, from the perspective of the Judaizers, perfect obedience was not required, but regardless of their view, Paul sees observing the law as works righteousness.

Surely the New Perspective and the traditional perspective are not compatible at every point, but the present observation is that they are compatible on several key issues.²⁹

Gal 3:11

Ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται. Paul uses this verse to support his argument that “no one is justified before God by the law.” One can only wonder how the New Perspective advocates can claim that “the debate in Galatians 3 is not over how an individual becomes saved, but what the sons of Abraham look like. Paul asserts that they look like people with faith, without respect to the works of the law.”³⁰ Paul is repeatedly raising the question of how an individual can be righteous before God, otherwise he would have no need for v 11, where he mentions both justification (δικαιοῦται) and the individual (οὐδεὶς, singular negative pronoun). Furthermore, the question of justification returns again in vv 21-25. This issue is perhaps the real difference between the New Perspective and the traditional one. On this matter there can be no common ground. Paul’s contention is with a works righteousness by the law over against a works righteousness by faith.

That individual righteousness is in view here is supported by Paul’s present context, as well as the historical context of Habakkuk where “strife exists and contention arises, the law is ignored, and justice is never upheld.” (1:4). This is not the picture of people who are still inside the covenant of Israel, they have completely stepped outside of it (cf. 2:5-19). It is in this scenario that Habakkuk is commanded to record his vision on tablets. The vision is faithful; “it will certainly come, it will not delay” (2:3). And so it is the righteous who live, not by their own righteousness, but by the faithfulness of the vision (2:4). When Paul takes up this text he alters its perspective somewhat. He focuses not on the faithfulness of the vision but on the faith of the one who waits for the vision. And so it is the “righteous by faith who will live.” If this is so then one cannot possibly be righteous by the law.

Gal 3:12

ὁ δὲ νόμος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ πίστεως. Paul appears to be shifting arguments here. Not only are those who seek to observe the law under a curse because they cannot obey it, but also because there is something inherently problematic with law-salvation to begin with. Only faith saves in Paul’s view. If this is the case then, “the law is not of faith.” On this point Sanders appears to be correct when he says that Paul’s belief that ‘salvation’ comes only through Christ is a dogmatic presupposition on his part.³¹ Paul was apparently confident that the people he was addressing would already share his basic convictions on this matter as a result of his previous teaching, so that all he needed to do now was to indicate for them its implications for the present situation, not persuade them of its truth.³²

ἀλλ᾿ Ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς. This is Paul’s proof for why the law is not of faith. The law says that the ones who do the law will live by their doing (Lev 18:5). Hence, the law cannot save because it requires something different than God’s means of salvation. Thus far, Paul argues that the law cannot save for two reasons: 1) no one can keep it; and 2) the law is not of faith. There is a problem with both the doer and the doing.³³ As Paul will later point out, the law was never meant to save in the first place (3:21-22).

Gal 3:13

Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου. Since the law cannot save by its very nature, and those who seek to observe it are unable to do so faithfully, then the only means of salvation must be Christ. He redeems law-observers from the curse. Thus the argument here to the Galatians is something like, “if you have been redeemed from the curse of the law then you have no need to place yourself under it by seeking to observe it.”

Here, the element of story line becomes significant. Paul is moving through salvation history. He is solving the questions surrounding the quotations from the Torah not by simply appealing to a different interpretation than the Judaizers. Rather, he is answering the questions with events. Christ has come and freed you, he says, it is a new age. You were once imprisoned to the law but now you are free. You do not need to seek the law for your status of any kind. To reach back to obey the law is to stand still in salvation history.³⁴ In seeking to observe the law you are seeking to remain under the curse from which Christ has redeemed you. This then appears to serve as another reason those who observe the law are under a curse. They are cursed because by turning back to obey the law, they are rejecting the redemption from the law.

γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα, ὅτι γέγραπται, Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου. Here, Paul answers how it is that Christ could redeem law-observers from the curse. He redeems them by becoming a curse on their behalf. His identity becomes one of a curse. He is comes as one “born under the law” (4:4). The law curses anyone who is hung on a tree. Thus, the law curses him on our behalf.

Gal 3:14

ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γένηται ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως. According to Paul, Christ’s work on the cross not only brought redemption but was the catalyst for several other steps in the story-line of salvation history. As a result, the blessings of Abraham come to the Gentiles by Christ. Paul will further explain this in vv 15-18. These blessings can only come as a result of the Gentiles becoming the “sons of Abraham.” Paul’s point for the Galatians is that the blessings of Abraham for Gentiles (i.e., Galatians) comes only through Christ. Furthermore, with Christ’s redemption comes the promise of the Spirit, which, once again, is only available through faith.

The Spirit, for Paul, cannot be promised by the law. It is only available through τῆς πίστεως. This is a crucial argument for Paul. The Spirit can only come with Christ and not the law. As Stanley points out, “[Receiving the Spirit] It could not have come through the normal route of conversion to Judaism and acceptance of the Torah, since that route offers only a ‘curse’ (and by implication, ‘death’) and not the blessing of ‘life’, which comes only by faith.”³⁵ In v 5 he asks his audience if God provided them with the Spirit by the works of the law or by the message of faith. The obvious answer is that the Spirit comes only by the message. Taking ἀκοῆς πίστεως as “message of faith” provides warrant for taking διὰ τῆς πίστεως as meaning simply the concept of faith. Instead, Paul is saying that we receive the Spirit through “the faith.” It is the content of the gospel which provides the Spirit made possible by the new age that Christ’s advent and work has brought.

Conclusions

Paul’s use both familial imagery as well as personal story line and redemptive story line in Galatians, helps bolster several arguments: 1) the curse of the law is an actual curse and not a potential one; 2) Those who observe the law are under a curse because they transgress God’s direction in salvation. For the Galatians to seek the law is to deny that Christ has redeemed them from it.

Furthermore, there are several arguments between the camps of the New Perspective and the traditional perspective that are not mutually exclusive. In fact, several controversies can be diffused to some extent when we recognize that the difference lies more in perspective of the argument rather than the content of it. The New Perspective is examining the law from the view of Judaism while the tradition view continues to examine Paul’s angle. The polarities that are expressed are often reactionary and thus fail to see how complimentary both sides can be to the other.

 

29 The thicket of exegetical controversies lies mainly in v 10. Most of the rest of our passage is informed by the meaning of v 10, and so vv 11-14 will not require the same attention as v 10.