Misunderstanding Galatians

An Exegetical, Originalist Commentary

M. I. Cha

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN:
  9781666713398
  9781666713404
• eBook ISBN:
  9781666713411
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

This commentary on Galatians seeks to provide an originalist understanding of the epistle by viewing Paul as a Torah-observant apostle of the Messiah who was arguing against compulsory proselyte conversion into Pharisaic Judaism and not the Old Testament law of God in general. As such, this commentary pays closer attention to the perpetuity of the Old Testament law of God, Paul's nuanced use of "law" (nomos), Jewish oral tradition, and the historical context of gentile proselyte conversion in Paul's time. The goal of this commentary is to combine the strengths of evangelical hermeneutics and recent advances in Pauline studies to arrive at a more accurate understanding of the original author's intended meaning within his own historical context.

1

Interpretive Presuppositions

This commentary approaches Paul’s epistle to the Galatians with four hermeneutical presuppositions: (1) the perpetuity of the OT law of God; (2) Paul’s nuanced understanding of “the law” in 1 Corinthians 9:20–21; (3) the historical reality of Jewish oral law; and (4) the central concern of gentile proselyte conversion in Galatians.

Perpetuity of the OT Law of God

The Messiah taught the perpetuity of the OT law of God (Matt 5:17–19):

17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

In The Complete Jewish Study Bible, David Stern offers the following helpful explanation of Matthew 5:17–20.

These verses provide crucial insight into Yeshua’s understanding of Torah and its meaning. Here he is not canceling the Torah; instead he is stating that he came to interpret it correctly. Romans 10:4 is misinterpreted by many, making Yeshua’s words in Matthew 5 difficult to understand . . . the statement that Yeshua did not come to abolish the Torah is a first-century rabbinic idiom. To “abolish” the Torah meant to misinterpret it, not cancel it. Second, Yeshua’s expression, to “complete” Torah, meant that he came to teach it correctly. David Friedman reinforces this: “Yeshua is here stating that it is not his intention to teach the Torah incorrectly, but quite the opposite, to affirm its fullness and truth by teaching all of it in a way that is true to its intended meaning” (Friedman, “Jewish Idioms in the New Testament”). In defense of this idiomatic usage in Matthew 5:17–20, Shabbat 116b states, “I have come not to take from the Torah of Moses [Moshe], but on the contrary; I have come to add to it.” Yeshua’s intent by reinforcing a correct understanding of Torah was to establish Torah’s full and intended meaning so that his disciples would know how to follow God.1

In much agreement, J. Daryl Charles observes,

What is striking [in Matt 5:17–20] is the degree to which the halakah advanced by Jesus himself appears to stand in continuity with the OT. The “greater righteousness” called for by Jesus does not stand in juxtaposition to the ethical standard enunciated in the law and the prophets. Rather, it is to be understood against the ethical deficiencies of contemporary establishment religion.2

Charles notes, “It has been said that Protestants have supreme difficulty in not underestimating the value of the Mosaic tradition in the corpus of divine revelation. Given the trajectory of much contemporary scholarship as it applies to Matt 5:17–48, it is difficult to disagree.”3 Charles shows that, according to Matthew, the first disciples of the Messiah traced their teaching back to the revelation imparted at Sinai, a standard reiterated by the Hebrew prophets. Charles concludes, “In the mind of Matthew, the question of discipleship could not be divorced from ‘the core’ of Jewish religion, which is doing righteousness.”4

Similarly, Noel Rabbinowitz offers a relevant study of Matthew 23:2–3.

2 “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.”

According to Rabbinowitz’s reading, the Messiah did affirm the authority of the Pharisees and their halakhic teachings in principle: “This is not a blanket endorsement of all their teachings, but a qualified affirmation of the Pharisees in their role as teachers of the Law of Moses.”5 The Lord’s command for his followers to do whatever the Pharisees taught was based on their legitimate occupation of the Seat of Moses, an actual chair in the synagogue and a symbol of their legal authority.6 In commanding the disciples to do “all” that the Pharisees taught, the Lord meant they were to obey their teachings regarding the Torah and halakah in principle, not their hypocrisy or corrupt teaching, a fact supported by the Messiah’s own basic obser...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Introduction: Misunderstanding Paul
• Chapter 1: Interpretive Presuppositions
• Chapter 2: Commentary on Galatians 1
• Chapter 3: Commentary on Galatians 2
• Chapter 4: Commentary on Galatians 3
• Chapter 5: Commentary on Galatians 4
• Chapter 6: Commentary on Galatians 5
• Chapter 7: Commentary on Galatians 6
• Bibliography