Transcript
Let us begin class with prayer. Eternal God, creator, sustainer, redeemer, and judge, we with all thy creatures in heaven and on earth are dependent upon thee for life and light, and every good gift we give thee thanks. So often we take thy gifts. Unmindful of the hand from which they come, we take them as though they were our due. Forgive us, we pray, for our presumptuous sin, and make us, we pray, humble in thy sight, knowing
that all that we have and all that we are comes ultimately from thee. Strengthen us, we pray, as members of the church of thy son. That we may assist others who are our brothers and sisters in that communion of faith, and assist us also, we pray, to make the gospel of Christ winsome to those who as yet have either not heard or have resisted the invitation of the gospel. Grant this, we pray. And then thy people
on earth, and thy angels in heaven, and thy angels in heaven, and thy angels in heaven, will rejoice over every sinner that repents, and turns to thee through thy son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in whose name and for whose sake we pray. Amen. Amen. According to the syllabus of the course, next Monday, the 28th of February, is the date, on which the first of the three short papers will be due, three papers, each one five to
six typewritten pages, dealing with topics that relate to one or the other, or preferably, one paper that deals with each of the three epistles that we're considering in this course. As the syllabus indicated, there are various ways in which you may approach any one or each one of these papers, approach from a historical point of view, from an exegetical point of view, a critical point of view, a theological point of view. I suggested at the beginning
that I think probably it would be wise if you would take for each of the three papers a different point of view of approach, historical, critical, theological. But if you prefer... I see no reason why you can't do it if you prefer that, to deal with each of the topics in the same general way, historical, or text critical, or theological, et cetera, et cetera. But I just think from the standpoint of diversification, it might be better,
in the long run, at least for most of you, to deal with each paper from a different point of view. Using a different methodology, that is. Well, now we have come to the midpoint of the letter of Paul to the congregations in Galatia. We dealt at some considerable length, I think, at the end of the last period, with the beginnings of Paul's theological structure, of what he was beginning to say at the end of chapter two
of Galatia. And I think that, as we looked at that, it must have come across to you, I'm sure, the very frequent use of the Apostle Paul of the verb to justify. He uses it in that second half of the chapter of chapter two very frequently, as he uses the same verb to justify now in chapter three, chapter four, and in others of his epistles. To justify, to pronounce someone just, to make the declaration that someone
is right in the sight of God. The Greek verb dikai-ao, ending as it does in the vowels a-o, belongs to that kind of Greek verb, which makes a pronouncement, which makes a forensic statement, which declares something in a forensic way. Dikai-ao, from the stem, meaning right or just. It does not mean to make someone just, but it means to pronounce someone just. And throughout the end... End of chapter two, now chapter three of
Galatians, as well as in Romans 3 and elsewhere, the Apostle emphasizes that through faith in Jesus Christ, a person is regarded as right in the sight of God. Now, with regard to the implications of this, suppose one would ask the question, what do you think is the... Center of Pauline theology? The, to use two Latin words, the centrum paulinum, the core of Pauline theology. Well, a lot of people, I'm sure, would say that justification by faith
alone, apart from keeping, works in accordance with the Old Testament law. This is the core of Pauline theology. Well, I'm sure that... That is a very important element in Pauline thought. We've seen how often he reiterates this, just to recollect again. For example, Galatians 2, verses 15 and following. We who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a person is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus
Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be justified by faith in Christ. And not by works of the law, because, and here he repeats himself the third time, because by works of the law shall no one be justified. And he keeps on and on regarding the theme of how to become right in the sight of God. It's through faith in Jesus Christ. Justification by faith alone. But as we saw last week, the
faith that justifies the... Does not remain alone. We are justified by faith alone. But that faith never remains alone. And so I think that in answer to the question, if it would be propounded, of what would you regard as the center of Pauline theology, yes, justification by faith is a very important element in the structure of his thought. But. I think that the center... Of Pauline theology is expressed by what he uses as a phrase, in
Christo, in Christ. First of all, this phrase, in Christo, or in Christ Jesus, or in him, that or some cognate expression occurs 164 times in the Pauline letters. That is to say, he uses it not only many times, but he uses it virtually in all his letters. Now, when you consider that the theme of justification by faith, an important theme to be sure. When you consider that that theme appears chiefly in Galations and Romans. And the
rest of the texts. once or twice in 1 Corinthians, as over against the multiplied use of the phrase en Christo, in Christ, in all the epistles. And when secondly you consider that in Galatians and Romans particularly, Paul had to fight against certain groups called Judaizers that were seeking to mix the Mosaic law and the gospel of Christ, then I think we can understand that the reason that Paul speaks in these two letters, Galatians and Romans, especially
about justification by faith, is obviously to correct an aberration which had begun to infect the members of these churches. That is to say, the emphasis in these two letters, Galatians and Romans, on the theme justification, justification by faith, an important theme, the emphasis arises from the circumstances in those churches and need not represent what Paul thought was the central feature of the Christian faith. Let me say again, that theme is certainly important, but when you ask
yourself, what is the centrum paulinum? I think that it is wrapped up, with what's involved in the phrase, to be in Christ. A phrase that I said occurs, in one form or another, 164 times in the letters attributed to Paul. Now when you analyze it, that's a rather unusual phrase. Nobody ever said, I am in Moses. I am in Plato. Plato. In more modern times, I am in John Wesley. I am in Thomas Aquinas. Francis of
Assisi. We never use the phrase to be in somebody, except that Paul uses it with regard to in Christ Jesus. That's an unusual use of the dative case in Greek grammar. You don't find it in classical Greek, with regard to being in Plato, in the Greek, in the Greek, in the Greek, in the Greek, in the Greek, in the Greek, in the Greek. In Socrates, in Moses, et cetera, et cetera. It's an unusual grammatical expression. And
as you try to unpack what it means, I think that Paul, to whom this phrase comes as natural as daylight. I am in Christ Jesus. The life that I now live, I no longer live according to the flesh. I am crucified, and I am crucified with Christ. Nevertheless, it is not I that live, but Christ that lives in me. And I am in him. This must be the way in which Paul now is so caught up
in a mystical union with Christ, that the German grammarian, Adolf Geismann, in speaking about this grammatical construction of the use of the dative case, that you might say is invented by Paul, he calls it the mystical dative case. The dative usage. Well now, Paul didn't sit down and say to himself, go to now, I'm going to invent a new grammatical category of the use of the dative case. It simply was that he was so much overcome
by the authority, and love, and kindness of Jesus Christ, who had had mercy on him, that by faith in him, Paul, as it were, moves in the atmosphere of Christ. In the domain of Christ. And he now belongs as a member of the body of Christ. So I think that this expression, to be in Christ, is an expression that, more nearly than the expression to be justified by faith alone, is an expression that would indicate, to
my way of thinking, what is the center of Pauline theology. To be in Christ. Now, in the beginning of the third chapter of the epistle to the Galatians, I want to try to show a number of things. I want to try to show what is said in chapter three, theologically. But I also want to try to point out what I think is a fact that Paul's theology there agrees with and fits into the teaching of Jesus.
I want to counteract, at least in some measure, the, to me, erroneous opinion that Paul and Jesus are antithetical. The view of some people that Jesus preached a very simple gospel, largely in the field of ethics, and that Paul, on the other hand, muddied the clear water of Jesus' teaching by mixing in a very great amount of theological speculation. Look, for example, at this phrase that I've just been dealing with, in Christ, which I think can
be said to be a high point in Paul's thinking. I don't think that we can say that Paul is the originator of the idea. He may be the originator of the formula, in Christo, but not the originator of the idea that lies behind the formula. I think that we find in such gospel passages as Matthew 18:20, where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst. I think that is
a germ that was developed later on with respect to being in Christ. Or to take another gospel passage, John 15, verse 4, which may very well be written after the time that Paul wrote to the Galatians, but which I think indicates the earlier thinking on the part of Jesus. I am the vine, you're the branches. If a person abide in me, and I in that person, well, you know the rest of the passage of John 15.
Again, the thought of being incorporated mystically into the body of Christ. So my point now is not only to say what I think is the central idea of Paul, Paul's theology, but my next point is to show in this brief way that I think that it grows out of the teaching of Christ himself. Secondly, I've already dealt, and I will not repeat myself, about this very important theme to be justified by faith alone. But what I
want to do now is again to show, and I think it is clear when you consider it in the way that I'll present it to you, that Paul's thinking, which may seem to be somewhat doctrinaire, is nothing but an elaboration of Jesus' teaching about the forgiveness of sins. We are justified not by keeping the works in accordance with the Old Testament law, but by faith, faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus gave, on one occasion, the teaching of
God's forgiveness by telling about the prodigal son who had run away, who now comes back, and who repents. Father, I'm not worthy to be called thy son. Make me as one of thy hired servants. And then what happens? Does his father say, all right, for the next 18 months you're on probation, and if you live a righteous life, and if you make reparations for your past misdeeds, well, I'll probably give favorable consideration to your request to
be made once again a part of this family. Of course, that's not what the parable says. The parable says that apart from doing works to earn his status once again in the family, just by free forgiveness, the father welcomes back the prodigal son. Now, without using technical language, Jesus is saying, it seems to me, exactly the same kind of theology that Paul is saying here and elsewhere. We are not justified by doing works in accordance with
the Old Testament prescriptions, but we are made right in the sight of God through commitment to Jesus Christ. We are justified by faith alone. But the faith that justifies never remains alone. We cannot imagine, for example, in the parable that the father, henceforth, has no concern at all whether that prodigal continues to live within the orbit of the father's love, or once again hives off and leaves. Of course, it's intended to show that this is a
permanent relationship once again. We are justified by God's free and gracious forgiveness, but that then is followed by our living in accordance with the will of the father. Well, in these two respects, and I'll try later in the term to show other respects as well, the theological understanding that Paul develops here is a theological understanding that develops, does not introduce new ideas so much as using different phraseology to express ideas that are already set forth in
the public ministry of Jesus. Last week I quoted to you from the Westminster Shorter Catechism, the classical definition of what is justification and secondly, what is sanctification. I'll not repeat those answers to questions 33 and 35 right now, but simply emphasize that the focus of justification dikaiou is to pronounce someone right. It is, in the terms of the Shorter Catechism, an act whereby, an act of God's free grace wherein he pardons all our sins for the
sake of Christ. Whereas, sanctification is the work of God's free grace, the continuous work in a person's life. Justification is the, we might say, the initial pronouncement and sanctification, the continuous growth in righteousness and holiness. Now, the next topic that I jotted down for us to give attention to, I'm not able, of course, to deal with every verse in all three of these epistles, but I've tried to indicate for my own guidance in lecturing, what are
some of the things that we must absolutely concentrate our attention on. The next has to do with Christ becoming a curse for us. That's certainly a very startling idea. Chapter 3, verse 13, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For as it is written, cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree. That quotation is from Deuteronomy 21:23. Curse. Well, of course, that means the opposite of a blessing.
It has to do with the pronouncement of God's displeasure. It's the opposite of the health and strength and prosperity and success that is comprehended under the Hebrew word shalom. A curse is an expression that proceeds from God's wrath. This is the word which is used when, in the book of Genesis, God caused misery and death to fall upon human beings because of sin. The serpent is cursed. The ground is cursed. Cain is cursed. Now, in this
rather unusual sentence that Paul finds in the book of Deuteronomy, cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree. That doesn't mean, of course, that climbing up as a child and swinging from one branch to another, hanging on, but it means being impaled, crucified, put to death, as a public spectacle, hung. You lose your life. You're hanging there as an object of degradation. The author says that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being
made a curse for us, for it is a matter that arises from this quotation, a hanged person is accursed by God. A criminal that's hanged is accursed by God. The passage in Deuteronomy, the quotation of that passage here, does not mean that a person is cursed by God because he is hanged. The passage in Deuteronomy and its quotation here means that death by hanging was the outward sign in Israel of a person who was thus accursed
by God. It's an appropriate outward sign showing the condign punishment meted out to a person. Not that a hanged man is cursed by God because he now is hanged or crucified, but that death by hanging or crucifixion is the appropriate outward sign in Israel that that person is cursed and deserves that kind of terrible death. The passage in Deuteronomy Paul now says that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law. This catches up in
verse 13, the idea that Paul first introduced in verse 11, namely, All who rely on works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all the things written in the book of the law to do them. Paul regards the keeping of the law like a ring. And if you break any section of the law, just as any place you would break the ring, the perfection of
the circle of the ring is destroyed. So it does not matter, says Paul, whether you are a great sinner breaking many laws or, as we might say, a little sinner breaking one law, the perfection of keeping the law is broken. And cursed be everyone who does not abide by all the things, not by the majority, but by all the things written in the Old Testament law. He quotes here also from Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 27, verse 26. So
it shows from the scriptures that everyone is under God's displeasure. That, to use the word curse, the curse of God rests upon each person. Now that curse, he says, is removed because Christ redeemed us. He redeemed us by absorbing in himself. The displeasure of God. He redeemed us by becoming a curse for us. Now I think that I just slightly introduced to you the last time the thought, and I want to show its relevance today, the
thought of how I think Caiaphas, the high priest, was very, very canny, very, very smart in plotting the destruction of Jesus. The mafia that belonged to Caiaphas could have murdered Jesus, certainly, in the Garden of Gethsemane at nighttime. But Caiaphas, I think, wanted to plot the way if Jesus had been gotten out of the way of by being murdered. How could Caiaphas be sure that he would not then be regarded as a martyr and his followers
rally to his support and Jesus, after his death, would still exert a very great influence. But with very diabolical cleverness, I think, Caiaphas took the risk, of trying to make things work out so that Jesus should be crucified. And so, a public spectacle in Israel being regarded as a criminal against whom God had broken out in displeasure because everyone that is hanged on a tree, crucified, is the object of God's... It's a picture that God is
displeased with that person. And so, to try to make it work out that not his own henchmen murdering Jesus, but working it out so that first the trial before the Sanhedrin, then the trial before Pilate, who had the authority to crucify, that eventually Jesus was put to death, in such a form of death, that Caiaphas figured would be a form of death that, to use popular language, would put the curse of death on Jesus and none
of his followers would thereafter have any more to do with him. Now I admit, this is reading between the lines of the Gospels and this passage here too, but I come back at least to what this says. That Jesus was made a curse for you and me. And leaving Caiaphas out of the picture, what does it mean that Christ is made a curse for our benefit? Ernest Gordon, who until two years ago was the very beloved
Dean of the University Chapel, years ago, wrote a book called Bridge Over the River Kwai. Ernest Gordon, with other Scottish military people, had been sent to the South Pacific in the Second World War. He and others had been captured. This book, Bridge Over the River Kwai, by Ernest Gordon, and I think that book was made into a movie, I don't believe I ever saw the movie, but in the book there's a very interesting illustration of what
it means for somebody to take the rap for somebody else. The Japanese captors of the Scottish regiment required that the captives work in making roads, building a bridge over the River Kwai, and doing other work in the very, very torrid climate of the South Pacific. In the morning, the regiment would be marched out with shovels and picks and so on to do very hard physical labor, and then at the end of the day, they'd be ranged
in a row, and the, I don't know what you call them in the Japanese army, the captain or corporal or what, would make sure that all the tools were there. They'd carry them back, stack them up again in the tool house, catch some rest that night. The end of one of these days, Ernest Gordon says, one of the shovels was missing, and this sent the corporal or whatever into a rage. He said, my government is very
kind to you in providing you with these tools. You are just dealing in a very impolite way in losing one of them. Now the person that is responsible for losing that shovel, stand out. You will be shot. Well, nobody went forward. That increased the rage of the corporal. He said, unless somebody confesses, I'll shoot all of you. Well, Ernest Gordon said that a Scottish soldier did step out, and he was whacked over the head with the
butt of the rifle, skull broken. The rest of them marched back. He was lying there, dead. When they got back to the camp and stacked their tools, they saw that shovel in the tool house. Nobody had taken it that morning. Here is an illustration of someone that takes the punishment to prevent the rest from suffering. Paul here says that Christ redeemed us from the curse, having become a curse for us. That in Christ Jesus, the blessing
of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Now, starting at this point, verse 15, the author makes a different appeal. He makes an appeal in terms of some illustrations. First of all, the illustration of somebody that draws up the last will and testament. He says, now look here, even in human affairs, nobody who makes a covenant, nobody who enters into an agreement, no one who makes a
will, has somebody else add to that, it remains that way. Verse 16, now the promises of God understood, made to Abraham and to his offspring, are not going to be negated by the Mosaic law that comes some 400 years after the time of Abraham, time of Moses. No, the promise, the covenant that God gave and made with Abraham, you see once again, here Paul catches up what he said earlier in this chapter, chapter 3, verse 7,
that Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. This promise given by God that in you shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, that promise is not going to be set aside. A promise that was ratified by Abraham's faith. Is not set aside now by the law of Moses that he says does not unknow the covenant previously ratified by God. Well, Paul looks around now for another illustration to try to show
the permanence of this arrangement. He has thus far indicated that the anterior promise made by God to Abraham is not nullified some 430 years later when through the Mosaic covenant the Levitical priesthood and cultists were instituted. But now he has to answer some questions that are I'm sure popping up in the minds of his readers. Well, Paul, if what you say is true, then of what use is the Mosaic law anyhow? So here and a number
of other places Paul answers that question of what the function of the Mosaic law really is. Now I'm going to try to systematize from a number of Paul's statements here and from a number of his statements in Romans. Paul's view of why the law of Moses was added. What he has to say in 3 verse 19 is very highly compressed. We'll have to, as it were, unpack these highly compressed statements. Verse 19. Why then the law?
He's got to try to say something on the subject of the true purpose of the Mosaic law. He has said that the law cannot make people righteous in the sight of God. Well, why bother with it? Why should God have given it in any case? He says, It, the law of Moses, it was added because of transgression. It was added beyond what God had promised to Abraham because of transgressions. What does that mean? Well, it means
that Paul regards the law as defining what a transgression is. Through the Mosaic law, he says, comes the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:20. The law says what sin is and what is not sin. To take a very simple example, in the time of Abraham, other patriarchs, polygamy was quite legal. But when the ideal and the law of marriage became higher, then polygamy became illegal. Law defines sin. Secondly, this very curious expression that we're looking at,
that the law was added because of transgressions. In a double sense, the law creates sin. This is a very curious phrase. Why is the law? Well, it was added because of transgression. The New English Bible paraphrases it and I think brings out the thought better than the literal translation that I've just read from the RSV Bible. The New English Bible of 3:19. The law was added to make wrongdoing a legal offense. It was added to
make wrongdoing a legal offense. In Romans 4:15, very concisely Paul says, where there is no law, there is no transgression. And Romans 5:13, sin is not counted where there is no law. It's impossible to transgress a law that is not there. But once a new law is made, a new transgression is created. Take a very simple modern analogy. Up to a certain date, it's legal to drive in either direction on that street, any street.
It's legal up to a certain time to drive either up or down a street in either direction. Then the regulation is made by the borough that turns that thoroughfare into a one-way street. And now, with that new regulation, a new breach of the law, a new transgression has been created. So each new law creates a new sin. So in one sense, the law creates sin by defining what a transgression is. But on the other hand,
secondly, there's a more serious way by which the law creates sin, subjectively. In chapter 7 of Romans, Paul gives us what I think is a piece of autobiography, if it had not been for the law, he says, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet, had not the law said, you shall not covet. The very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me. Here Paul is face
to face with an age-old problem. The prohibition of the law becomes a stimulus to sin. By forbidding the thing, the law creates our desire for it. Well, here then, why is the law added? The first thing, he says, it's added in order to identify and define what is evil in the sight of God. Does this then mean that the law is something evil? He says by no means. He says that more than once in Romans,
he says here, verse 21, is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not. For if a law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the scripture consigned all things to sin, that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now he elaborates his argument by adducing another illustration. He uses the illustration of what in Greek is translated in a
number of ways, paidagogos. A paidagogos, translated in the King James version, a schoolmaster. That the law is the schoolmaster that brings us to Christ. The RSV translates it custodian. It's very hard to find one altogether suitable English translation of paidagogos. It's made up of the root of the word meaning child and the verb to lead. Someone that has charge of, that leads a child. We find the word in secular Greek. It refers usually to a slave
who has charge of the boys that belong to a certain family and takes those boys under safe tutelage from the home to the school teacher for the day's teaching. And then at the end conveys them back safely to their home again. You might call it a truant officer. A paidagogos has charge not to teach them but to look out for them and to make sure that they don't dawdle on the way, that they don't get into
a puddle of mud on the way, that they are observant and obedient and so on. And this being the function of the paidagogos in a number of comic plays in Greek plays by Menander and others in antiquity, a paidagogos became the butt of jokes. For example, your face looks sour as the face of a paidagogos. That is to say, this person had a very bad public relation, very bad ideas, because all the time, now don't dawdle,
come along, it will be late. All kinds of negatives, don't do this, don't do that. That's a function of a paidagogos. Now Paul happens I don't know, he does choose this as an illustration of what the Mosaic Law does. He says the Mosaic Law is our custodian which is in effect until Christ comes. So long as we were in our minority. But now that Christ has come, we have reached our majority. We are no longer children.
We are heirs, joint heirs with Jesus Christ. And so he says, the function of the law is temporary. It is temporary in its restraint for us. It is temporary and will be dispensed with after the time of the coming of Christ. So the law of Moses has a positive service. The law of why was the law given if in fact from the beginning call of Abraham, it's through faith. The law was given in order to identify
and define what sin is in order, secondly, that it might guide us and keep us to measure ourselves against that law. But now, in Christ, a Christian who is within the orbit of Christ's influence, Christ in him, he in, or she in Christ. This means that the Mosaic law is of a temporary character. The discipline of the life and morals to which the law subjected the Jewish nation was in a real sense a preparation for the
coming of Christ. So then, he says here by concluding his argument, before faith came we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. So the law was our custodian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. And now that faith has come, we're no longer under a custodian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. And as many of you as were baptized into Christ have
put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither male nor free, neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And after the ten minute break, I want to say some venerable comment about this last verse that I've just read. I'm going to read it to you...