Sobre lo común: recursos naturales y digitales

In anal s ng Mart n’s read ng o Galat ans 2:16 there s uch to be commended and much to preserve. The Christological emphasis of his apocalyptic interpretation must remain the primary focus in any reading of Galatians. However, h s work s sub ect to two unda ental po nts o cr t que. F rst Mart n’s ra ng o the ant thes s o 2:16 n ter s o agenc s debatable. On Mart n’s read ng the antithesis as it is presented in 2:16 is a divine act set against a human act: justification s e ther the result o πίστις ιστ (divine) or ἔ γα νόμ υ (hu an). Th s

interpretative move flows from his conviction of the centrality of the antinomy of

πίστις or πίστευω although he assu es a “ lu d t o re erence” between a th trust and bel e n the three occurrences of the verb in Galatians (Martyn, Galatians, 275).

549 _{Mart n “God's Wa ” 151. He does acknowledge that although secondar t s “no less}

s gn cant” (Galatians, 252).

550 _{Martyn, Galatians, 275.} 551 _{Martyn, Galatians, 276.} 552 _{Martyn, Galatians, 276–77.} 553 _{Mart n “God's Way,” 151.}

142 apocalypse and religion in Galatians.554 What happens in his exegesis, then, is that the themes are subjugated to fit with this broader reading. One chief example of this is the way he appl es th s “central” ant no n nterpret ng δικαιόω. B de n ng δικαιόω as rectification, or making things right, Martyn slants the discussion in his favour so that the ἐκ and διά from 2:16 are taken in an instrumental sense. Thus the resulting question becomes: how does God rectify the world? With the question posed in this way, any answer involving human faith must be rejected on the basis that it would g e a th the nstru ental role n “rect cat on.” Thus the wa n wh ch he ra es the antithesis suggests a kind of contest between divine and human agency.

Construing agency as the primary issue in the antinomy is rather dubious. As Matlock has observed, if such a contrast between human and divine agency were intended here, why did Paul not articulate the antithesis in terms of ἔ γ ν ιστ and ἔ γα νόμ υ?555 Certainly, this antinomy underlies the whole letter as has been help ull clar ed n Mart n’s read ng o ke erses such as 1:4 12. Although oundat onal to Paul’s ant thet cal declarat on it is not necessarily the distinctive emphasis of the antithesis. Below we will offer an alternative interpretation of both δικαιόω and ἔ γα νόμ υ that results n a better read ng o Paul’s central ant thes s n Galatians 2:16. For now, we simply call in to question the interpretative lenses through which Martyn chooses to portray these elements of the antithesis.

As a second po nt o cr t que Mart n’s author al gen t e nterpretat on o the h ghl contested phrase διὰ πίστεως Ἰησ ιστ also seems to arise primarily from this theological concern that divine agency takes priority over human agency. However, as we have seen, this theological concern has already been validated in the surrounding context. It does not logically follow that πίστις ιστ is an expression re err ng to hr st’s a th.

Martyn primarily relies on the foundation laid by Hays in adopting his authorial genitive reading but provides two additional observations.556 The first observation relies on his re-identification of traditional justification language with his pre erence or rect cat on. H s nterpretat on o πίστις ιστ specifically refers to God’s rect ng act or ak ng th ngs r ght in Christ.557 As noted before, Martyn

554 _{Martyn, Galatians, 39.}

555 _{Matlock “Detheolog z ng " 12.}

556 _{Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ. Hays will be interacted with briefly later in this chapter and in}

more depth in chapter six.

143 frames his language of rectification such that a conclusion of this sort becomes

necessary. Yet, this is not the obvious, nor the only, interpretative option. Secondly, he observes a correspondence between Galatians 2:16 and 2:21 such that Paul is referring to an opposition between rectification by Law observance and rectification b the deed o God n hr st. On th s bas s Mart n contends that πίστις ιστ is an express on b wh ch Paul speaks o hr st’s aton ng a th ulness.558

In the first of his two observations regarding the authorial genitive reading, Martyn has simply restated this theologoumenon rather than offering a rigorous exegetical case to support it. In our exegesis below, we will demonstrate a close analysis of the structure of Galatians 2:16, something that Martyn neglects, to support the objective genitive reading.

In h s second obser at on Mart n has r ghtl noted that God’s ust cat on s accomplished through Christ. However, such a reading does not delimit the

nterpretat on o πίστις ιστ solely to the authorial genitive construction.559 It ust be re terated that Mart n’s e phas s on the pr or t o God’s act and a

Christological focus is absolutely fundamental to an accurate reading of the letter in general and o the phrase πίστις ιστ in particular. However, it does not follow that nterpret ng πίστις ιστ as an objective genitive renders an anthropocentric reading. As we have repeatedly seen in our exegesis thus far, human faith in Christ is an expression of dependence and thus absolutely Christologically focused. Human a th s a s gn o one’s recogn t on o the pr or t and e ect eness o the hr st- e ent. Thus πίστις ιστ can refer to human dependence on the salvation

accomplished in Christ. Πίστις ιστ refers to that salvation in Christ but does not re-express it.

1.2 Martinus de Boer’s Apocalyptic Framework

1.2.1 δικαιόω

Martinus de Boer has followed the apocalyptic interpretation of his mentor, J. Louis Martyn, whereby God has initiated the eschatological act of cosmic rectification n the person and work o hr st that w ll reach ts cul nat on n hr st’s Parous a.560

558 _{Martyn, Galatians, 271.}

559 _{Moreo er th s nterpretat on does not pl that ust cat on s rooted n hr st’s a th.}

Rather God’s act n hr st s ocused on h s aton ng death. Th s po nt w ll be ore ull de ended below.

560 _{Martinus C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,}

144 De Boer takes Galatians 1:11-12 as Paul’s thes s state ent or the letter: Γνω ίζω γὰ ὑμῖν ἀδελφ ί τὸ εὐαγγέλι ν τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ’ ἐμ ὅτι ὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ

ἄνθ ωπ ν· ὐδὲ γὰ ἐγὼ πα ὰ ἀνθ ώπ υ πα έλαβ ν αὐτὸ ὔτε ἐδιδάχθην ἀλλὰ δι’ ἀπ καλύψεως Ἰησ ιστ . In the same vein as Martyn, de Boer asserts that two aspects o the gospel are exe pl ed n these erses: “ ts origin in God and its divine truth.”561 This thesis concerning the gospel is summarised, according to de Boer, in five additional passages in Galatians, the first of which occurs in 2:15-16. De Boer understands Paul to be citing known and shared traditions in verse 16a.562 The forensic-eschatolog cal ean ng o δικαιόω “to ust declare r ght nd cate appro e ” s attr buted to the new teachers n Galat a.563 However, and perhaps more significantly, de Boer suggests that Paul understands the word to acquire an additional cosmological-eschatolog cal nuance “to rect ” ake r ght put stra ght.564 In this way, Paul separates “ ust cat on” ro law obser ance and attaches t exclus el to Christ.565 Thus s larl to Mart n de Boer concludes: “God’s ust ng act s interpreted by Paul as God’s act o cos c rect cat on n ol ng a ‘rescue ro the present e l age’ (1:4) l berat on ro the ale olent cos c powers that hold swa there (3:13, 22-23; 4:3-5; 5:1, 16-24).”566 The problem Paul addresses is not so much sins humans commit against God, but Sin as a “ ale olent ensla ng and godl ke power” to wh ch all hu ans are n bondage.567 _{Paul can still speak of sins (1:4), but}

these are not the actions of autonomous humans but rather of slaves who are serving their master, Sin.

1.2.2 ἔργα νόμου

De Boer, like Martyn, understands the phrase ἔ γα νόμ υ to re er to

observance of the Law, to doing the specific deeds that it requires. In this reading, De Boer puts forth two points of clarification. First, he addresses the issue of legalism, identifying three forms: 1) the Law is observed in order to achieve salvation; 2) the Law is observed in such a way as to lead to self-righteousness; 3) the Law is observed

561 _{De Boer, Galatians, 16.} 562 _{De Boer, Galatians, 143.} 563 _{De Boer, Galatians, 34.}

564 _{De Boer, Galatians, 34. Martyn indicates that the two ideas contrast.}

565 _{De Boer, Galatians, 155. De Boer also pre ers “rect cat on ” be ng ade r ght as the best}

translation of δικαιόω. Howe er he reta ns the ter “ ust cat on” n h s co entar to nd cate “that the meaning Paul attaches to the term is not inherent in the term itself but is a consequence of the argumentative and theological contexts in wh ch he places and uses t” (166).

566 _{De Boer, Galatians, 35.}

145 in a purely formal and external way. De Boer distinctively concludes that there is no evidence that legalism of any form is the issue in Galatians.568 Secondly, de Boer addresses the view that Paul has only select laws in mind when he rejects ἔ γα νόμ υ. In this discussion, de Boer notes two primary variations: 1) Paul rejects the cultic, ceremonial portions of the law, such as circumcision and food laws, but embraces the moral law; or 2) Paul rejects the portions of the law that distinguish Jews from Gentiles (e.g., circumcision, food laws, and special feast days).569 In this view, works o the Law are the “badges” o Jew sh dent t .570 De Boer rejects the notion that Paul is only referring to specific laws because, in Galatians 5:3, Paul warns the Galatians that e er one who pract ses c rcu c s on s “obl gated to do the whole law.”571 Furthermore, in 4:5, Paul asserts that those to whom Christ was sent to redeem were “under the Law ” not under so e port on o t.572 Thus “works o the Law ” n de Boer’s read ng o Paul re ers to an and all deeds co anded b the Law.

1.2.3 πίστις Χριστοῦ

For de Boer, πίστις ιστ is the interpretative crux in Galatians 2:16.573 De Boer gives the interpretation of the highly debated genitive construction a fuller treatment than does Martyn. In favour of the subjective genitive reading, de Boer suggests that 2:16a should be read in light of 3:22ff. The two verses include the same phrase: πίστεως Ἰησ ιστ . Yet in the verses following, 3:23-25, Paul speaks of “Fa th” n a person ed wa wh ch de Boer suggests represents a rtual s non or hr st (3:24): “Fa th ‘ca e’ onto the world stage at a certa n uncture n t e (3:23, 25) as hr st h sel d d (3:19).”574 _{De Boer cla s that a th s not here “an ntr ns c}

hu an poss b l t nor e en a hu an act t .” Rather a th s a eton or hr st: “‘ a th’ s so eth ng that belongs to or de nes hr st h sel .”575 In light of this context in chapter three, de Boer is convinced that the phrase ought to be similarly understood in 2:16.

568 _{De Boer, Galatians, 147. Note that he leaves aside the question of whether this conclusion}

also counts for Romans.

569 _{Cf. especially James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians}

(London: SPCK, 1990), 191–96.

570 _{Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law, 194, 220–24.} 571 _{De Boer, Galatians, 147, 312.}

572 _{De Boer, Galatians, 148.} 573 _{De Boer, Galatians, 139.} 574 _{De Boer, Galatians, 149.} 575 _{De Boer, Galatians, 149.}

146 De Boer finds additional support for his subjective genitive reading in Romans 4:16: πίστις Ἀβ αάμ s seen as a parallel construct on to πίστις Ἰησ ιστ . πίστις Ἀβ αάμ “undoubtedl ” eans “the a th o Abraha ” support ng a s lar

nterpretat on or πίστεως Ἰησ ιστ .576 Secondly, in Galatians 1:1 and 1:11-12, Paul pos ts an ant no between hu an act t and God’s act on n hr st and thus probably also in 2:16. Thirdly, in Romans 1:5, Paul describes faith as obedience and n Ro ans 5:19 he re ers to “the obed ence” o hr st wh ch can also be described as h s πίστις. De Boer suggests th s to be the case n Ro ans 1:17 wh ch he translates: “ ro [ hr st’s] a th to [our] a th.”577 Fourthly, the parallel of Galatians 2:16 with Galat ans 2:21 nd cates that πίστεως Ἰησ ιστ must refer to hr st’s death. De Boer clar es that hr st’s πίστις does not re er so uch to a “sub ect e att tude on the part o hr st as to an ob ect e e ent: h s aton ng death on a cross.”578 After this wide-ranging analysis, de Boer concludes that it is highly probable that πίστις ιστ s a “su ar descr pt on o hr st’s a th ul death.”579

1.2.4 Human Faith

While Martyn is to be commended for at least conceding that there is a Pauline conception of human faith, it is perhaps the lacuna in his interpretation of it that has allowed for the more thoroughgoing interpretation adopted by his student, Martinus de Boer. De Boer takes the conclusions of Martyn to their logical next step,

el nat ng (al ost) ent rel the role o hu an a th. In de Boer’s anal s s every occurrence of πίστις in Galatians refers to the faith of Christ himself.580 _When

address ng the erbal construct on n 2:16 καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς ιστὸν Ἰησ ν

ἐπιστεύσαμεν he concedes that the sense here s trust or rel ance upon Jesus.581 _Even

we were to accept de Boer’s argument that the three phrases ἔ γα νόμ υ, πίστις Ἰησ ιστ , and δικαιόω are formulae that Paul adopted, we may assume that this unambiguous verbal reference to human faith is clearly a Pauline concept.

Nonetheless, de Boer relegates any significance of a human subject of faith since the verb occurs only three times in the letter (2:16; 3:6, 22).

576 _{De Boer, Galatians, 149} 577 _{De Boer, Galatians, 150.} 578 _{De Boer, Galatians, 150.}

579 _{Here de Boer adopts Ha s’s re erent al ean ng. . Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 287; De}

Boer, Galatians, 150.

580 _{De Boer lists Gal 5:22 as the only exception (192).} 581 _{De Boer, Galatians, 142.}

147 Outs de o Galat ans de Boer reads Paul as so et es e plo ng πίστις n reference to human subjects believing in Christ (e.g., Rom 1:5). However, in Galatians de Boer argues “Paul appears to use the ter πίστις consistently as shorthand for πίστις ιστ .”582 He concludes then: “The pr ar referential meaning of πίστις in Galatians, therefore, is (apart from 5:22) always the faith of Christ himself: his faithful death on the cross, not human faith in Christ, which is but a secondar subord nate pl cat on o the phrase.”583 De Boer understands Paul to use the verb, not the noun, in Galatians, to refer to human faith, and this he employs sparingly (2:16; 3:6, 22). De Boer’s conclus on s that hu ans who do bel e e n hr st are ust ed “not on the bas s o the r own bel e ng response but ‘on the bas s of [ek] the a th o hr st.’”584