To recap, some Jewish Christians had come to the church in Galatia preaching that Paul's Gentile converts needed to become circumcised. We can also assume they wanted the Gentiles to observe other parts of Mosaic Law. In rebutting this teaching, Paul's rage is palpable in the letter he writes to the Galatians, and he says some very intemperate things about the false teachers.
In making the contrast between his gospel and that of the false teachers, Paul says this in Chapter 2:
We know that a person is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we ourselves have believed in Christ Jesus. This was so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no human being will be justified.
And at the end of the chapter he sums up with this:
For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.So much has been written about the theology of Paul. There's the Old Perspective. There's the New Perspective. To say nothing about the Catholic and Orthodox perspectives. Plus, to be honest, there's really a bunch of new perspectives. So there's a lot of hubris in my trying to share in a short series what I take to be "Paul's Gospel." But in this series I'd like to share what I think is at the heart of how Paul envisioned the Good News. Toward that goal, I think a critical clue comes here in Galatians 2, where Paul is concerned about Christ "dying for nothing." There was something in the false teaching being spread in the church of Galatia that was marginalizing or canceling the work of Christ. And getting clear about the nature of that marginalization, I think, helps clarify the content and vision of Paul's gospel.
Now, according to the "old perspective" on Paul, the Lutheran perspective, the teaching of the Jewish Christians in Galatia was marginalizing the work of Christ because they were attempting a "works-based righteousness." They were trying to "earn their salvation." In this older, Lutheran view, the issue here is a works-based righteousness versus a gospel of grace. Earning your salvation versus accepting it as the free gift of God, something that you could never earn. And yet, as the new perspectives on Paul have argued, this vision is only partly true, and because of this also prone to distortions.
One of the biggest distortions I pointed out to our Bible class concerns how the Jews thought about the Law. The Jewish people weren't trying to "earn their salvation." They weren't legalists beholden to a "works-based righteousness." For the Jewish people, the Torah was a gift of grace. The Law was shelter and rest. A safe harbor. Sanity in an insane world. Just read Psalm 119, the great ode to the Torah:
Oh, how I love your law!
I meditate on it all day long.
Your commands are always with me
and make me wiser than my enemies.
I have more insight than all my teachers,
for I meditate on your statutes.
I have more understanding than the elders,
for I obey your precepts.
I have kept my feet from every evil path
so that I might obey your word.
I have not departed from your laws,
for you yourself have taught me.
How sweet are your words to my taste,
sweeter than honey to my mouth!
I gain understanding from your precepts;
therefore I hate every wrong path.
Your word is a lamp for my feet,
a light on my path.
Now, it is true that in the book of Galatians Paul describes the Law as a power that brings us under a curse. We'll get to that issue in this series. But Paul is clear to say in Romans that the Law is holy, spiritual, and good. That description of the Law shows that Paul has not rejected the vision of Psalm 119. The Law of God is a lamp to our feet and a light for our path. So, as Paul is keen to point out in Romans, the problem here isn't with the Law.
Another distortion we also have to be alert to in thinking about Paul's gospel concerns the Greek phrase pistis Christou. Most translations translate pistis Christou as "faith in Christ." That is, we are saved by having faith in Jesus. But as many of the new perspectives on Paul have argued, pistis Christou might better be translated as "the faithfulness of Christ." That is, we are saved by something Jesus has accomplished.
Now, I'll admit that, for a lot of Christians, these debates about pistis Christou can seem like splitting hairs. Because both translations--"faith in Christ" and the "faithfulness of Christ"--seem both necessary and true. Christ saved us in his atoning work (the "faithfulness of Christ") and we need to accept that gift by faith (having "faith in Christ"). And yet, the two ideas are different.
Let me give an illustration. Imagine you're in a burning building and you fall unconscious due to smoke inhalation. You later regain consciousness, waking up outside the building laying on the grass, firetrucks and firemen all around you. You've been saved. Someone entered the building, found your unconscious body, and carried you outside. But as you look around, no one is standing near you. You know you've been saved, but don't know how or by whom. You having "faith" in that person and in what they did for you is irrelevant. You might even wonder to yourself, "I don't believe it." Still, you've been saved. Your "belief" or "disbelief" doesn't change anything. You're alive.
In short, the translations "faith in Christ" versus the "faithfulness of Christ" highlight the subjective versus objective aspects of salvation. Since Martin Luther, we've highlighted the subjective aspects of salvation. We need to "believe." We need to "have faith." Salvation has to do with a change in my mind. It is a wholly subjective phenomenon. The translation "faithfulness of Christ," by contrast, highlights the objective aspects of salvation. Your mind, in this view, isn't involved. Christ is the firefighter who carries your unconscious body out of the burning building. Objectively and factually, you've been rescued. And you having "faith" had, and has, nothing to do with it.
The point to be observed here is that we can distort Paul's gospel by thinking he's asking us to "accept Jesus into our heart" when he's really just pointing out facts about our changed reality. This circles back to Paul's point about Christ dying for "nothing." Believe it or not, Christ did something, something that the Law couldn't do, as good, holy and spiritual as it is.
To understand Paul's gospel, therefore, we need to understand that Christ died for something. What I hope to do in this series is describe that something.
