[1] Howard and Gaston are recent exceptions; see Howard, G., Paul: Crisis in Galatia (SNTSMS 35; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) esp. 46–82Google Scholar; and Gaston, L., ‘Paul and the Torah’, in Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity, ed. Davies, A. T. (New York: Paulist Press, 1979) 48–71.Google Scholar

[2] So Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 68 f.Google Scholar, 72, 81; Bruce, F. F., Commentary on Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 166 f.Google Scholar; Howard, , Crisis in Galatia, 58–60Google Scholar; Guthrie, D., Galatians (New Century Bible; London: Oliphants, 1974) 102–4Google Scholar; Schlier, H., Der Brief an die Galater (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 136 f.Google Scholar; Bonnard, P., L'épître de Saint Paul aux Galates (Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1953) 68 f.Google Scholar; Ridderbos, H. N., The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, trans. Zylstra, H. (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953)Google Scholar; Mussner, F., Der Galaterbrief (HThK 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 231–4, 268–70Google Scholar; Reicke, B., ‘The Law and this World according to Paul: Some Thoughts Concerning Gal. 4.1–11’, JBL 70 (1951) 274.Google Scholar G. B. Caird takes a similar position on the parallel construction in 4. 5; see Principalities and Powers (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956) 47–9.Google Scholar

[3] So Hays, R. B., The Faith of Jesus Christ (SBLDS 56; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 86–92, 116–21Google Scholar; Betz, H. D., Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 148Google Scholar; Dahl, N. A., Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg: 1977) 132Google Scholar; Bligh, J., Galatians. A Discussion of St. Paul's Epistle (London: St. Paul Publications, 1969) 235, 269–72Google Scholar; Bandstra, A. J., The Law and the Elements of the World: An Exegetical Study in Aspects of Paul's Teaching (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) 59 f.Google Scholar; Lagrange, M. -J., Saint Paul: Epitre aux Galates (5th ed.; Paris Gabalda, 1942) 71–3Google Scholar; Duncan, G. S., The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Moffatt; New York: Harper & Bros., 1934) 99–102Google Scholar; Burton, E. D., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921) 169Google Scholar; Zahn, T., Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (2 Aufl.; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1907) 156–60Google Scholar; Lightfoot, J. B., St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (10th ed.; London: Macmillan, 1905) 139 f.Google Scholar; Burdon, C. J., ‘Paul and the Crucified Church’, ExpT 95 (1983–1984) 138Google Scholar; Schwartz, D. R., ‘Two Pauline Allusions to the Redemptive Mechanism of the Crucifixion’, JBL 102 (1983) 259 f.Google Scholar; Hill, D., ‘Salvation Proclaimed: IV. Galatians 3.10–14’, ExpT 93 (1981–1982) 198Google Scholar; Barth, M., ‘Die Stellung des Paulus zu Gesetz und Ordnung’, EvTh 33 (1973) 515Google Scholar; Robinson, D. W. B., “The Distinction Between Jewish and Gentile Believers in Galatians’, Australian Biblical Review 13 (1965) 29–48.Google Scholar Bring's commentary is exegetically imprecise, but he too sees Paul as making at least some sort of salvation historical distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Gal 3. 13 f.; we Bring, R., Commentary on Galatians, trans. Wahlstrom, E. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961) 143–8.Google Scholar

[3] Gaston argues a third position, that ήμεīς refers exclusively to Gentile Christians; see ‘Paul and the Torah’; ‘Angels and Gentiles in Early Judaism and in Paul’, SR 11 (1982) 65–75Google Scholar; ‘Paul and the Law in Galatians Two and Three’, in Richardson, P. (ed.), Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfred Laurier University Press, forthcoming).Google Scholar His arguments will be taken up below, n. 10.

[5] Lightfoot and Burton, who interpret the first two passages exclusively but the third inclusively (cf. below, n. 73), are rare exceptions.

[6] Cf. Hays, , The Faith of Jesus Christ, 86–121.Google Scholar

[7] For reasons that will be given below (see n. 25), I identify both ήμεīσ (v. 3) and οί υπό νόμον (v. 5a) as references to the same (Jewish Christian) group. There are some commentators who, interpreting v. 5a in this way, nevertheless we v. 3 as a reference to all Christians (cf. w. 5b–6; for bibliography, we below, n. 25). For the purposes of the pattern outlined above, the decisive reference to the group and its plight is given in v. 5a; there is room for discussion as to whether the ήμεīς of v. 3 is to be linked with this group or with the group in v. 5b referred to by άπολάβωμεν (i.e. all Christians).

[8] Bandstra believes that the first person plural in both vv. 3 and 5 refers to Jewish, Christians; The Law and the Elements of the World, 60.Google Scholar But in v. 6 Paul assumes (οίı δέ) that he has laid the groundwork for the statement that his Gentile Christian readers are νίοί this can only be true if άπολάβωμεν includes Gentiles. Bligh's similar interpretation of v. 5 (Galatians, 330 f.) depends on his questionable assumption that 4. 1–7 is a continuation of Paul's Antioch discourse. Gaston's interpretation of all three passages as dealing exclusively with the situation of Gentile Christians rests on assumptions which will be examined below (n. 10).

[9] Apart from Gaston, the only exception to my knowledge is Burdon, who sees a dialectical pattern of Jews (v. 13), Gentiles (v. 14a) and Jews again (v. 14b); see ‘Paul and the Crucified Church’, 138.

[10] As was briefly indicated above (n. 4), Gaston believes that in Gal 3 and 4 Paul is concerned exclusively with the Gentiles and their relationship to the law: re ήμεīς, ‘Paul so identified with his readers that the first person plural actually means “we gentiles”’ (‘Paul and the Torah’, 62); re υπό νόμον, the phrase with its negative connotations ‘seems to have been used by Paul to designate the gentile situation’ (ibid.). This reading of Galatians is part of a broader attempt to interpret Paul within a ‘two covenant’ (or neo-Ebionite; cf. Ps: Clem. Hom. viii. 4–7, Rec. iv. 5) framework. Paul assumed the continuing validity of the Torah for Jewish Christians, but saw his task as apostle to the Gentiles as one of creating ‘a gentile church loyal to the righteousness of God expressed in Jesus Christ and his fulfilment of the promises to Abraham’ that would stand along-side ‘an Israel loyal to the righteousness of God expressed in the Torah’ (ibid., 66). He builds his position on the basis of a study of first century Jewish thinking about the law as it related to the Gentiles. He argues that the equation of Torah with Wisdom (e.g. Sirach) meant that Gentiles were seen as required to keep Torah as law without being part of the Torah covenant established by God with Israel. As far as the Gentiles were concerned, ‘Torah as law functions in an exclusively negative way, to condemn’ (ibid., 61). Unfortunately, Paul had only the one word νόμος to describe a two-fold reality. His negative comments about νόμος apply only to the situation of the Gentiles; he ‘said nothing against the Torah and Israel, but simply bypassed them as irrelevant to his gospel’ (ibid., 66).

Gaston's programme is nothing if not ambitious, and, especially in raising the question of first century thinking on the Torah as it applied to Gentiles, it is highly suggestive and stimulating. But it is doubtful that his interpretation will gain many adherents. This is not the place to deal with it in detail, but, as far as Gal 3 and 4 is concerned, it needs to be said that if Paul intended to say what Gaston thinks he said, then he failed to take advantage of obvious places where he could have made his intentions clear. In his categorical statements on the law (e.g. 3. 10–12, 18, 19, 21) he gives no reason to believe that he is talking about the law only as it pertains to Gentiles, and that he would say something entirely different on the topic ‘Israel, Christ and the law’. Also, it is difficult to believe that he would, without further ado, use the first person plural to refer to an exclusively Gentile group, especially after he had clearly identified himself with Jewish Christians in his comments to Peter concerning the issue of Jew-Gentile relationships in the Antioch church (2. 15 f.). And in view of his statement that Christ was born υπό νόμον (4. 4; cf. Rom 1. 3; 9. 5), the position that the term refers to Gentiles exclusively is impossible to maintain. That Gentile Christians are included in the ήμεīς of 3. 13 is at least open to debate; that Jewish Christians are excluded is not.

[11] Gaston has performed an important service in insisting that such discussion be placed in the context of Jewish attitudes towards the Gentiles and the Torah (‘Paul and the Torah’, esp. 56–62). One area where further work needs to be done is that of the ‘eschatological model’ of Jewish universalism discussed below, pp. 99 f.

[12] See Conzelmann, H., I Corinthians, trans., Leitch, J. W. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 160 f.Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: A. & C. Black, 1968) 211 f.Google Scholar In light of Rom 2. 12, where Paul describes the Gentiles with the term άνόμως, Gaston's argument that in 1 Cor 9. 20 f. he deals consecutively with the Jews (οί Ίονδαίοı, the Gentiles (οί υπό νόμον), and the Corinthian antinomians (οί άνμοı) is untenable. See ‘Paul and the Torah’, 63.

[13] See Marquardt, F. -W., Die Juden im Römerbrief (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971)Google Scholar; and Barth, ‘Die Stellung des Paulus zu Gesetz und Ordnung’, 496–526.

[14] See, e.g. Sanders, , Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 72 f.Google Scholar; and Howard, , Crisis in Galatia, 59 f.Google Scholar

[15] The Gentiles are not included with οί ήν τῷ νόμῳ in 3. 19, for, as Cranfield argues, v. 19a sums up the argument of 2. 1 ff. that Jews, no less than Gentiles, are ‘under sin’ (v. 9) and thus υπόδıκος τ θε (v. 19b); see. Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 1979), I, 195 f.Google Scholar

[16] So Schlier, , An die Galater, 137Google Scholar; Bruce, , Galatians, 167.Google Scholar

[17] So Bruce, , Galatians, 196Google Scholar; Howard, , Crisis in Galatia, 59.Google Scholar

[18] Cf. Schlier, , An die Galater, 137.Google Scholar

[19] So Schlier, ibid.; Reicke, ‘The Law and This World’, 274.

[20] See, e.g. Bruce, , Galatians, 167Google Scholar; Howard, , Crisis in Galatia, 59.Google Scholar But even overlooking the LXX origin of these additions to the MT text, the identity of the group thereby referred to is determined by the phrase ὅσοı έξ εργων νόμου, which brings us back to the question.

[21] Again, , Bruce, , Galatians, 180–2Google Scholar; and Howard, , Crisis in Galatia, 59.Google Scholar But here the decisive phrase is (significantly) not υπό νόμον but υπό άμαρτίαν. That Paul saw all humanity as being υπό άμαρτίαν. (or υπό τά στοıχεīα το κόσμου; 4. 3, 9) is not to be doubted. The point is, though, that for Paul being υπό νόμον is a particular and non-universal way of being υπό άμαρτίαν; see below, pp. 96 f., 103 f.

[22] Lightfoot, (Galatians, 168)Google Scholar and Guthrie, (Galatians, 120)Google Scholar argue that the anarthrous form means not the Mosaic law in particular but the principle of law observance in general. But this distinction cannot be maintained; see, e.g. the synonymous use of νόμος and ό νόμος throughout Rom 2. 17–27, and, more generally, Gal 2. 16, 19; Phil 3.5, 6, 9; Rom 2. 12, 13; 9. 31; 10. 4.

[23] ‘The Law and This World’, 259.

[24] On the apocalyptic background to τά στοıχεīα το κόσμου, see Beker, J. C., Paul the Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 188Google Scholar; cf. Betz, , Galatians, 204 f.Google Scholar For another view, see Bandstra, , The Law and the Elements of the World, 60.Google Scholar

[25] This interpretation does not require that ήμεīς in v. 3 be seen as a reference to Jews only. It may be that Paul is saying here that ‘we all–Jews who are under the law (cf. v. 5) and Gentiles who are not–are equally in slavery to τά στοıχεīα’; so Betz, , Galatians, 204, 208Google Scholar; Lagrange, , Epitre aux Galates, 95, 103.Google Scholar In my opinion, however, the force of the analogy in 4. 1 f. suggests an exclusive sense for ήμεīς: ‘The κληρονόμοı (Jews) as νήπıοı are no better off than the δσυλοı (Gentiles). Both are in slavery. So it is with us Jews; despite the fact that the νίσθεσία is ours (cf. Rom 9. 4), we, no less than the Gentiles, are in slavery.’ So also Duncan, , Galatians, 127Google Scholar; Zahn, , An die Galater, 195.Google Scholar

[26] See Lagrange, , Epitre aux Galates, 71Google Scholar; Duncan, , Galatians, 99Google Scholar; Zahn, , An die Galater, 156.Google Scholar

[27] For a plausible summary of the position of Paul's opponents, see Beker, , Paul the Apostle, 43 f.Google Scholar

[28] Galatians, 235.

[29] See Betz, , Galatians, 148.Google Scholar

[30] Cf. Betz's designation of 2. 15–21 as the ‘Proposition’ (Propositio) and 3. 1–4. 31 as the ‘Proofs’ (Probatio).

[31] For a discussion of one further aspect of Gal 3 that has a bearing on the interpretation of ήμεīς–a discussion postponed until later for reasons partially procedural and partially substantive–see below, pp. 101 f., esp. n. 58.

[32] As is generally agreed among commentators, the two ὅα clauses are co-ordinate rather than sequential (as in Rom 7. 3; 2 Cor 9. 3); Lightfoot, (Galatians, 140)Google Scholar is a rare exception. The second does not merely repeat the content of the first, however, but enlarges the sphere of the consequences of Christ's redemptive activity.

[33] Here, in contrast to 3. 14, the two ὅα clauses are sequential; the ‘adoption’ or ‘us (all)’ is dependent on the redemption of ‘those under the law’ (so Betz, , Galatians, 208Google Scholar; Bruce, , Galatians, 197Google Scholar). For other examples of sequential purpose clauses, we 1 Cor 4. 6 (ὅα…ἵνα) and Gal 2. 4 (infinitive …ἵνα).

[34] Some scholars are of the opinion that 3. 13 f., along with 4. 4 f., rest on pre-Pauline Jewish Christian tradition; we, with varying emphases, Dahl, N. A., ‘The Atonement–An Adequate Reward for the Akedah?’ in Neotestamentica et Semitica, ed. Ellis, E. E. and Wilcox, M. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969) 23 f.Google Scholar; idem, Studies in Paul, 133 f.; Wilcox, M. ‘“Upon the Tree”–Deut. 21. 22–23 in the New Testament’, JBL 96 (1977) 99Google Scholar; Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (London: SCM, 1961) 135, 228–35Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., ‘νίός κ.τ.λ.’, TDNT 8, 374 f.Google Scholar; Bruce, , Galatians, 195 f.Google Scholar; Betz, , Galatians, 150 f.Google Scholar, 205 f. A stonger case can be made for 4. 4 f.; the presence of γενόμενον έκ γυναıκός, a point not picked up elsewhere in the argument, suggests such a conclusion. But the case of 3. 13 f. is less certain. Paul's use of the idea of the curse of the law–a concept with no parallels in Jewish Christian material–is entirely explicable within the context of an argument based on the ‘blessing of Abraham’. At any rate, our interest here is in the use that Paul makes of the concept; cf. Hays, , The Faith of Jesus Christ, 117–19.Google Scholar

[35] E.g. Betz, (Galatians 152)Google Scholar and Hays, (The Faith of Jesus Christ, 193–235)Google Scholar leave it untouched.

[36] So Bligh, , Galatians, 272Google Scholar; Lagrange, , Epitre aux Galates, 71.Google Scholar

[37] So Bandstra, , The Law and the Elements of the World, 124Google Scholar; Lightfoot, , Galatians, 140Google Scholar; Lagrange, , Epitre aux Galates, 73.Google Scholar Robinson (‘Jewish and Gentile Believers’, 38 f.) recognizes that the connecting steps for such an explanation are not present, but finds it ‘difficult to supply any other explanation’ (italics his).

[38] The term is Burton's, (Galatians, 169)Google Scholar; for Burton, however, the event is merely a deliverance from the ‘false conception … that God actually deals with men on a legalistic basis’ (168). See also, Duncan, , Galatians, 99–102, 127–30.Google Scholar Cf. Zahn, , An die Galater, 159.Google Scholar

[39] For accounts of Jewish proselytizing activity, see0 Jeremias, J., Jesus' Promise to the Nations, trans. Hooke, S. H. (SBT 24; London: SCM, 1958) 11–17Google Scholar; Hahn, F., Mission in the New Testament, trans. Clark, F. (SBT 47; London: SCM, 1965) 21–5Google Scholar; de Ridder, R. R., The Dispersion of the People of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, and Kampen: Kok, 1971) 88–127Google Scholar; Kuhn, K. G., ‘ποσήλυτος’, TDNT 6, 727–44Google Scholar; cf. Bamberger, B. J., Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (New York: Ktav, 1968).Google Scholar

[40] See, e.g. Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 206–12Google Scholar; Gaston, ‘Paul and the Torah’, 56–62.

[41] On the Isaianic authorship of Is. 2. 2–4, see von Rad, G., ‘The City on the Hill’, in his The Problem of the Pentateuch and Other Essays, trans. Dicken, E. W. Trueman (Edinburgh & London: Oliver & Boyd, 1966) 233–5Google Scholar; Wildberger, H., ‘Die Völkerwallfahrt zum Zion. Jes. 2.1–5’, VT 7 (1957) 62–81.Google Scholar

[42] See especially Jeremias, , Jesus' Promise to the Nations, 55–62Google Scholar; von Rad, G., Old Testament Theology, trans. Stalker, D. M. G. (Edinburgh & London: Oliver & Boyd, 1965), 2, 292–7Google Scholar; Martin-Achard, R., A Light to the Nations, trans. Smith, J. P. (Edinburgh & London: Oliver & Boyd, 1962), esp. 61–75Google Scholar; Causse, A., ‘Le mythe de la nouvelle Jérusalem du Deutéro-Esaie à la III^e Sibylle’, RHPR 18 (1938) 377–414Google Scholar; Sundkler, B., ‘Jésus et les païens’, RHPR 16 (1936) 485–8Google Scholar; McKelvey, R. J., The New Temple (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969) 12–15.Google Scholar See also chapters 4 and 5 of my forthcoming monograph Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology (JSNT Supp. Ser.; Sheffield: JSOT Press).Google Scholar

[43] E.g. Is 24. 23; 29. 8; Joel 3. 9–21; Mic 4. 11–13; Zech 14. 12–15; Ps Sol 17. 24, 32; 2 Bar 72. 1–6.

[44] E.g. Is 2.2–4/Mic 4.1–3; Is 60.1–22; Jer 31. 23, 38–40; Ezek 17. 22–24; 40–48; Zech 8. 1–23; 14. 10 f., 20 f.; 1 En 90. 28 f.; Jub 1. 15–17; 1 Bar 5. 1–4; 2 Bar 4. 2–4.

[45] E.g. Jer 31. 1–25; Ezek 20. 33–44; Is 35; Zech 8. 7 f., 20–23; 1 Bar 4. 36 f.; 5. 5–9; Ps Sol 11. 1–3; 17.50; Jub 1.15–17; Tg Jer 31.23; Tg Is 4.3; 6.13 etc.

[46] E.g. Is 24. 23; 52. 7; Ezek 17. 22–24; 20. 33, 40; 34. 11–16, 23–31; 43. 7; Mic 4. 6 f.; 5. 2–4; Zech 14. 8–11; Jub 1.28; Ps Sol 17. 23–51.

[47] E.g. Is 25. 6–10a; 30. 23; 35. 5 f.; 61.6; Jer 31. 12; Joel 2. 26; Amos 9. 13–15; 1 En 90. 32–38; Ps Sol 17. 28–31; Sib Or III. 702–709, 741–60.

[48] E.g. Is 18.7; 60. 1–22; 66.18–21; Hag 2.21 f.; Ps Sol 17. 32–34; 2 Bar 72. 1–6; Tg. Is 25. 6–10.

[49] E.g. Is 2. 2 f./Mic 4. 1 f.; Is 25.6–10a; 56.6–8; Zech 8. 20–23; Tob 13. 11; 1 En 90. 30, 33; Sib Or III. 710–23, 772–76; LXX Is 54. 15; LXX Amos 9. 12.

[50] Also Sib Or III. 710.

[51] Commentators are agreed that τήν έπαγγελίαν το πνευματος is an epexegetic genitive; see Betz, , Galatians, 152 f.Google Scholar

[52] Cf. also 11. 17 where the ‘wild olive shoot’ (i.e. Gentiles) is grafted έν αυτοīς: not ‘in their place’ (RSV), but ‘among them’ (i.e. the remaining ‘natural branches’, the Jewish Christian remnant); see Cranfield, , Romans, 2, 567.Google Scholar

[53] See, e.g., Sanders, , Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 171 f.Google Scholar; Beker, , Paul the Apostle, 331–7Google Scholar; Hengel, M., ‘Die Ursprünge der christlichen Mission’, NTS 18 (1971–2) 20 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[54] Dahl sounds a similar note, though he does not develop it in the way that is being done here. Speaking of Paul's treatment of ‘promise’ in Gal 3, he concludes:

Little remains of the Jewish eschatological expectation that God will gather the dispersed sons of Israel, that he will reestablish them in the land, free from foreign domination. Although Paul has, by the standards of Jewish expectations, dissipated the promise's objective content, he nevertheless remains committed to the view that by his promises to the fathers God obligated himself to Israel. By his act in Christ Jesus, the servant to the circumcised, God confirmed his promises rather than voided them.’ Studies in Paul, 136.

What is being argued here is that at least in the matter of the anticipated consequences for the Gentiles of Israel's redemption, Paul has not dissipated the objective content of the promise, though he has reinterpreted it.

[55] My argument here depends on the formal similarities present in Gal 3. 13 f., rather than on any demonstration of real parallels between the substance of Paul's thought or the terminology in which it comes to expression and the eschatological pattern. The substance is determined by the peculiar kind of logic set in motion by his ‘conversion’ experience, and the terms in which he carries out his argument depend on the use made of Abraham by his opponents. It is well known, for example, that the ‘blessing of Abraham’ texts in Genesis were not incorporated into later eschatological traditions concerning the Gentiles; see, e.g. Davies, W. D., The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley–Los Angeles–London: University of California Press, 1974) 177.Google Scholar Also, while redemption language (g'I/pdh/λυτρουоθαı) plays an important part in Jewish eschatology (see Procksch, O., ‘λυω λ’, TDNT, 4, 328–35)Google Scholar, Paul's term έξαγαράςεω (3. 13; 4. 5) does not appear in this context in the LXX. And, although the status of the Torah vis-á-vis the Gentiles in this eschatological pattern is difficult to determine (cf. Sanders, , Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 18 f.)Google Scholar, Paul's thought on the topic is governed by his understanding of the Christ-event, rather than by any pre-existing Jewish expectation.

[56] See below, p. 101.

[57] This description is that of Boers, H., Theology out of the Ghetto (Leiden: Brill, 1971) 81.Google Scholar A similar opinion is registered by R. E. Brown, who informs us that such a viewpoint will also characterize J. Louis Martyn's forthcoming Anchor Bible commentary on Galatians; Brown, R. E. and Meier, J. P., Antioch and Rome (New York: Paulist Press, 1983) 121.Google Scholar See also Wilckens, U., ‘Zur Entwicklung des paulinischen Gesetzverständnis’, NTS 28 (1982) 180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[58] It is this fact–that a dimension of the problem remains even if ήμεīς in v. 13 refers to Jewish Christians–that made it necessary to discuss this problem in the central section of the paper rather than in the first (preliminary) section above. See above, n. 31.

[59] Beker, , Paul the Apostle, 49–52.Google Scholar In vv. 6–9 Christ plays no role at all; in vv. 13 f. he is ‘the “enabler” of the promise’ who removes the curse of the law ‘so that the blessing of Abraham–interrupted by the curse of the Torah–can now flow freely to the Gentiles’ ( 50); in vv. 26–29 Paul ‘underscores the uniqueness of Christ as the sole recipient and content of the promise’ (50).

[60] The Faith of Jesus Christ, esp. 193–235.

[61] Citing, Betz, Galatians, 181.Google Scholar

[62] The Faith of Jesus Christ, 232.

[63] For examples of those who interpret Paul here (along the lines of Rom 4) as urging his readers to imitate Abraham's faith, see, e.g. Burton, , Galatians, 15 3–62Google Scholar; Lindars, , New Testament Apologetic, 225Google Scholar; Davies, , The Gospel and the Land, 175Google Scholar; Hill, ‘Salvation Proclaimed’, 197. Some differences between Abraham's faith and that of Christians in this passage are recognized by Barrett, C. K., From First Adam to Last (London: A. & C. Black, 1962), 34–42Google Scholar; Schlier, , An die Galater, 141 f.Google Scholar; Bonnard, , L'épitre aux Galates, 70.Google Scholar

[64] Cf. Howard, , Crisis in Galatia, 54–58, 63–65Google Scholar; Boers, , Theology out of the Ghetto, 74–81.Google Scholar

[65] It appears nowhere else but Gal 3. 6, 9.

[66] Cf. Hays, , The Faith of Jesus Christ, 157–76Google Scholar, along with the literature cited there.

[67] Both, Dahl (Studies in Paul, 130 f.)Google Scholar and Wilcox (‘“Upon the Tree”’, 96 f.) recognize that the midrash on Gen 22. 18 contained in 3. 16 is already presupposed in v. 14a.

[68] So, e.g. Schoeps, H. J., Paul, trans. Knight, H. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961) 176 f.Google Scholar; Lindars, , New Testament Apologetic 228Google Scholar; Hill, ‘Salvation Proclaimed’, 197.

[69] Since ‘justification’ has been equated with ‘blessing’ (v. 8), an argument that the law cannot bring justification is equivalent to an argument that it brings a curse.

[70] On the problem of the disjunction between v. 10 and vv. 11 f., note esp. Sanders, , Paul, the Law and the Jewish People, 20–22Google Scholar; Howard, , Crisis in Galatia, 49–54Google Scholar; Hays, , The Faith of Jesus Christ, 206–9.Google Scholar Other discussions of the logic of 3. 10–14 include Dahl, , Studies in Paul, 170–2Google Scholar; Lindars, , New Testament Apologetic, 228–35Google Scholar; Schoeps, , Paul, 176–80Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., ‘The Curse of the Law’, in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett, ed. Hooker, M. D. and Wilson, S. G. (London: SPCK, 1982) 27–36.Google Scholar

[71] While Paul's statements about angels and intermediaries are puzzling and seemingly rash, the fact that the law was given δı' άγγέλων not υπ’ άγγέλων argues decisively against Hübner's position that the law was given by angels and not God; Hübner, H., Das Gesetz bei Paulus (2nd ed.; FRLANT 199; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1980) 27–33.Google Scholar Cf. Sanders, , Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 67.Google Scholar

[72] For the concept of a distinction between Paul's reasons (or fundamental convictions) and his arguments, and the idea that his arguments be seen as attempts to work out problems raised by conflicting convictions, Cf. Sanders, , Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, esp. 4, 144–8.Google Scholar

[73] The universal plight is to be seen in apocalyptic terms; see above, n. 24. Attempts to find a common denominator in legalism (e.g. Burton, , Galatians, 219Google Scholar; Bruce, , Galatians, 202 f.Google Scholar; Bring, , Galatians, 147 f.Google Scholar; Bandstra, , The Law and the Elements of the World, 63–5Google Scholar or ritualism (Lightfoot, , Galatians, 172 f.Google Scholar) are misguided.

[74] Three other occurrences, all in Rom: 2. 23; 4. 15; 5. 14.

[75] See Schneider, J., ‘παράβασıς’, TDNT, 5, 739 f.Google Scholar

[76] So most commentators; but cf. Bligh, (Galatians, 292–6)Google Scholar, who wants to include the prevention of sin among the purposes of the law.

[77] See Bruce, , Galatians, 202 f.Google Scholar

[78] The disjunction between vv. 10, 13 f. and vv. 11 f. remains. (Hays' attempt to interpret vv. 11 f. christologically is unconvincing; see The Faith of Jesus Christ, 150–7, 207.) The evidence from Romans suggests that Paul never did bring his arguments against the efficacy of the law into harmony; cf. Rom 4 (the law based on works not faith) and Rom 7 (the law incapable of being fulfilled). This only underlines the fact that his starting point for understanding the law is to be found in the fundamental conviction which comes to expression in (e.g.) Gal 2. 21.

[79] Following Hays; above, pp. 101 f.

[80] The summary is my own, but it depends (inter alia) on: Schweitzer, A., The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. Montgomery, W.New York: Seabury, 1968 [1931])Google Scholar; Stewart, J. S., A Man in Christ (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935)Google Scholar; Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism; Whiteley, D. E. H., The Theology of St. Paul (2nd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1974)Google Scholar; Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ; Hooker, M. D., ‘Interchange in Christ’, JTS 22 (1971) 349–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[81] See above, p. 99 f.

[82] In Rom 3. 29 f., e.g. Paul argues for the justification by faith of circumcised and uncircumcised alike on the basis of the Shema'. It goes almost without saying that this was not the reason for his commitment to the law-free Gentile mission; prior to his Damascus experience Paul would have found such an inference offensive and ludicrous.

[83] See above, p. 100.

[84] The question has not received the direct attention that it deserves, being treated often as secondary and subsidiary to that of the law. When the question is posed directly, sometimes the answer is sought in Paul's pre-Christian experience: he had been a Jewish proselytizing missionary (Schoeps, , Paul, 219Google Scholar); he had suffered from an uneasy conscience about Jewish particularism Davies, M. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: SPCK, 1948) 67Google Scholar; cf. Sanders, , Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 152–4Google Scholar). Sometimes the answer is sought in the nature of the Christianity that Paul persecuted: the Hellenistic church already rejected the law and admitted Gentiles; Paul merely adopted (and developed) positions which he had once attempted to suppress (e.g. Beker, , Paul the Apostle, 143 f.Google Scholar, 185; Wilckens, ‘Zur Entwicklung des paulinischen Gesetzverständnis, 155 f.). And at other times, the Gentile mission is seen, without elaboration, as part of the ‘given’ of Paul's Damascus experience (e.g. Senior, D. and Stuhlmueller, C., The Biblical Foundations for Mission (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1983) 171–7Google Scholar; Tyson, ‘“Works of Law”’, 431; cf. Sanders, , Paul, the Law and the Jewish People, 152).Google Scholar

[85] Paul and Palestinian Judaism, esp. 442–7; cf. Schoeps, , Paul, 175.Google Scholar