Bewitched?

About once per month, I’m going to slowly write my way through a short commentary on the Letter to the Galatians. I’ll deliberately skip the usual analysis typical of this genre—no “scholarly” questions, text-critical issues, and minimal formal interaction with opposing viewpoints. I’ve taught through the book four times now, and feel I’m in a position to have something competent to say on the matter. My aim is to write for normal Christians who just want to know what the text means. So, here I stand.

For reasons that aren’t important, I’m publishing this series beginning with Galatians 3:1-6. That is this article. The real fun stuff, of course, comes in Galatians 3:7ff. You’ll have to wait for next time for that!

First things first …

Here are some conclusions of mine, up front, so the reader can know the lay of the land:

  1. The Mosaic Law is not a vehicle for salvation, and it was never intended to be one.
  2. The Law was given to teach God’s people (a) how to worship Him rightly, which includes instructions about forgiveness of sins (moral cleanness) and ritual uncleanness, (b) to have a written moral code that is fairly comprehensive, but not exhaustive, and (c) to live as brothers and sisters in a particular society for a particular time.
  3. The Law is a tool for holy living, a guardian to keep people in a holy “holding pattern” while the plane circled the airport, waiting for Jesus’ first advent so it could “land.”
  4. Some flavors of pop dispensationalism have done incalculable damage by confusing Christians about the relationship between the Mosaic Law and the Gospel.

Now, to the text!

There is one issue on which every reader of the Letter to the Galatians must have an opinion. How you answer this question will determine whether you rightly or wrongly understand this letter. Here is the question:

  • Did God intend the Mosaic Law to be a way of salvation?

That’s it. That’s the question. If you can answer it, then you’ve unlocked the key to this letter. No matter what happens, if you continually ask yourself this question and remind yourself of the answer, then you can understand this book. If you don’t ask the question, then you’ll likely go wrong. If you answer it wrongly, then you’ll take a bad turn pretty quick. I’ll explain by and by—let’s dive into the heart of this letter.

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? (Galatians 3:1-2)

They’ve been tricked. Fooled. Hoodwinked. They know the truth, but they’ve been convinced otherwise. Paul preached the truth to them—they saw him explain with their own eyes, heard with their own ears. They know better than this. As Paul asks his question in v.2, we should picture him holding up his hand to forestall any heated objection from his audience.

“No!” he says. “You listen! Lemme ask you one thing—did you receive the Spirit by doing things to gain God’s favor, or by just believing what you heard? Which one!?”

The question is rhetorical. They know the answer. They know what Paul taught them. There’s nothing to say. The Spirit is tied to salvation, and that has never been by works—by doing things from the Mosaic Law.

Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? (Galatians 3:4)

Paul is deliberately provocative, here. To miss the Gospel and wander off into Jewish legalism is a terrible mistake. He’ll explain just how big a mistake it is, later (Gal 4:8-10). But, for now, he presses the point home with another rhetorical question. If they admit they did receive the Holy Spirit by simply believing the truth about Jesus (not by working to curry favor), then do they really suppose they have to add “things” to Jesus, to seal the deal? Add works? Add rules?

Rules are fine. Rules are good. God has standards of conduct. But, these flow from a true love for God—not the other way around. This is the great tragedy of Judaism in Jesus’ day, and in Paul’s. It’s why Jesus was so unhappy with the religious establishment. It’s why they were so angry at Him. They spoke different languages, as it were—they had different faiths. They had a different God.

The Jewish establishment had a God of legalism, where relationship was predicated on right conduct (orthopraxy). To have a relationship with God, you gotta follow the rules. So, for example:1

  • A beggar who reaches inside a home on the Sabbath to receive a food gift has committed sin. The act of reaching inside the window makes it so.2
  • If you search your clothes for fleas on the Sabbath, you have sinned.3
  • On the Sabbath, you must only roast meat if there is time for a crust to form on the surface, during the daytime. If you fail in this, you have sinned.4
  • If you rise to extinguish a lamp because you’re afraid of Gentiles or thugs, don’t worry—it isn’t a sin!5
  • God kills women in childbirth because they are insufficiently reverent when preparing the dough offering.6

I could go on. But, it’s clear there is little love in this kind of relationship. Where is the love? There can’t be loving obedience under this kind of system. This is why Jesus said, “They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders …” (Mt 23:4). One writer summed up this “other Gospel” pretty well:

Nothing was left to free personality. Everything was placed under the bondage of the letter. The Israelite, zealous for the law, was obliged at every impulse and movement to ask himself, what is commanded. At every step, at the work of his calling, and prayer, at meals, at home and abroad, from early morning till late in the evening, from youth to old age, the dead, the deadening formula followed him. A healthy moral life could not flourish under such a burden, action was nowhere the result of inward motive, all was, on the contrary, weighed and measured. Life was a continual tournament to the earnest man, who felt at every moment that he was in danger of transgressing the law; and where so much depended on the external form, he was often left in uncertainty whether he had really fulfilled its requirements.7

So, yes—it’s foolish to fall for this. To believe this is a real relationship with God. To believe the false teachers who are peddling this nonsense. That’s why Paul is upset.

Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?  (Galatians 3:4-5)

Is everything they’ve accepted about Christ pointless? Was it all worthless? For nothing? Paul repeats his question under a different cover with the same point—do we work to be rewarded with salvation’s blessings, or do we simply believe what we hear about Christ?

So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Galatians 3:6)

This question is also rhetorical. The answer is “we believed what we heard about Christ.” Good! They’re in great company, then—because Abraham also simply believed God, and was counted righteous. We should all follow Abraham’s example! He had the right idea before the Mosaic Law became twisted up in knots and perverted by the Jewish establishment. So, Paul suggests, let’s go back to Abraham and see what he can teach us about real faith.

We’ll turn to this, next time.

Notes

1 The Mishnah dates from approximately A.D. 200. But, it is a generally accurate compendium of tradition and rules that were around in Jesus’ day. We see a strong resemblance of its Sabbath regulations in Mark 7. Even if one wishes to quibble about the precise applicability of a compiled book ca. 170 years after Jesus’ death, it still captures the flavor and ethos of the relationship this system imagines God has with His people.

2 Shabbat 1:1, in Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 178–179.

3 Shabbat 1:3, in Mishnah.

4 Shabbat 1:10, in Mishnah.

5 Shabbat 2:5, in Mishnah.

6 Shabbat 2:6, in Mishnah.

7 Emil Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, second division, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1890; reprint; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2012), p. 125. See all of §28.

1849 reads

There are 17 Comments

dgszweda's picture

Agnes Moorehead, who played Endora on Bewitched, donated her Ohio Estate to Bob Jones Universtity upon her death.  It was donated 15 days before the Supreme Court issued its ruling on the IRS case against BJU.  The money from the sale of the property was rumored to help pay for the back taxes.  But again, only a rumor.

TylerR's picture

Editor

Interesting. I wish BJU well in a passive sort of way from afar, but I cannot bring myself to have any positive opinion on the school in light of its terrible legacy of wickedness on racial matters. Ichabod, basically. 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Don Johnson's picture

Tyler, that's uncalled for. Who made you God, to say such a thing?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Jeremy Horn's picture

Tyler, 

No one disputes BJU's formerly racist policies, but I sense from your comment that their public repentance(https://www.bju.edu/about/what-we-believe/race-statement.php) is and always will be insufficient no matter what they do. Is this in fact your position, Tyler? If so, does that mean that forgiveness for BJU is impossible and inappropriate? How does this square with Scripture, our final authority?

I am not saying that you should start promoting and supporting BJU, Tyler, but your comment seems to ignore the statement of Repentance from 2008 that I linked to above. I find such neglect to be problematic especially when your comment seems to be tinged with anger and bitterness.

I bear you no I'll will, Tyler. I found your article to be helpful and a good read. Thank you.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

That’s it. That’s the question. If you can answer it, then you’ve unlocked the key to this letter.

It's clear to me that the answer is "no."

Part of Paul's argument (I think in ch4) is that the law was added. This raises the question, "added to what"? When I studied through the book for a SS series, reaching that section was pivotal for me. Paul does answer the "added to what?" though perhaps not as directly as might be convenient.

The what is Abrahamic faith. So you have a faith system, so to speak, and a temporal blessing system built on top of it. Though the Mosaic covenant is full of commands to love and exclusively worship God, these are references to the pre-mosaic foundation. The covenant itself is pretty much all "behave in this way and I'll bless you in this way... disobey, and I'll curse you in that way."

So, it's all about earthly blessings, though as a component of a larger purpose and mission. (I'm not of the POV that says earthly blessings don't matter. God seemed to take them very seriously, and so should we, material and "passing away" though they are, in themselves.)

But the faith and devotion died faster than the law, though it certainly died fast enough as well. By Jesus day, it's very much a situation of "cherry pick what you want from the law, add lots of other stuff, and don't worry about where your heart is."

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

dgszweda's picture

TylerR wrote:

but I cannot bring myself to have any positive opinion on the school in light of its terrible legacy of wickedness on racial matters. Ichabod, basically. 

And yet we all had a legacy, night born into a spirit, of great wickedness, but God who is rich in mercy called us to him, and we are now a people.  And I am thankful that the Body of Christ and God himself see us in a new light.

T Howard's picture

WHEREAS, this is my first time preaching through Galatians; and

WHEREAS, I'm just beginning chapter two (2:1-10 to be more precise); now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that I will withhold all judgment on chapters 3-6 until I reach them.

 

BTW, these are the commentaries I'm consulting for my exegetical work:

  • J.V. Fesko, Galatians (LCEC)
  • Martin Luther, Luther's Commentary on Galatians
  • Douglas Mangum, Lexham Research Commentary on Galatians
  • Douglas Moo, Galatians (BECNT)
  • Robert Rapa, Galatians (EBC, revised)
  • Thomas Schreiner, Galatians (ZECNT)
  • Moises Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method
Don Johnson's picture

T Howard wrote:

BTW, these are the commentaries I'm consulting for my exegetical work:

  • J.V. Fesko, Galatians (LCEC)
  • Martin Luther, Luther's Commentary on Galatians
  • Douglas Mangum, Lexham Research Commentary on Galatians
  • Douglas Moo, Galatians (BECNT)
  • Robert Rapa, Galatians (EBC, revised)
  • Thomas Schreiner, Galatians (ZECNT)
  • Moises Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method

I have Schreiner (I think...) and Luther, but my go to in a recent series was Timothy George in the New American set. I have theological issues with him! But he is an outstanding commentator.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

T Howard's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

I have Schreiner (I think...) and Luther, but my go to in a recent series was Timothy George in the New American set. I have theological issues with him! But he is an outstanding commentator.

Thanks, Don. Before I begin a book, I usually consult two sources for commentary recommendations:

  1. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/top-5-commentaries
  2. https://dbts.edu/basic-library-booklist/

Based on these two resources, I usually pick the top 3. Because I use Logos, I also usually pick up the Lexham Research Commentary if it's been published. I already have EBC and EBCr, and I worked through Silva in seminary. Finally, I chose Luther because Galatians was the book he most loved.

Why did you choose Timothy George in NAC?

 

Craig Toliver's picture

It's a great school under Steve Pettit

But BJU should change their name to distance themselves from the past

They probably will in a decade or less

Don Johnson's picture

T Howard wrote:

Why did you choose Timothy George in NAC?

 

I also consult the Detroit list, and I think I have a book on commentaries somewhere from Masters Seminary (obviously my haziness shows I haven't consulted it lately!)

I have the whole NAC set via the Baptist Gold series I bought from Logos some years ago. (I think it was Baptist Gold... they keep changing the names). To be honest, I didn't expect much from them until I started using them. I haven't found one that disappoints.

My theological issues with George are mostly over Calvinism, so if you are more  or less a Calvinist that wouldn't be an issue. I was just amazed (while using it) at how thorough George was. I recently finished Acts, John Polhill in the same series is also very good. Now just starting Hebrews, have David Allen as one of my tools. He is good... but might be information overload! We will see, a lot of reading just on verse 1!

 

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Larry's picture

Moderator

My theological issues with George are mostly over Calvinism, so if you are more  or less a Calvinist that wouldn't be an issue. I was just amazed (while using it) at how thorough George was. 

Maybe this is why he is a Calvinist.:D

Isn't he also egalitarian? It's been a while since I used him but this rings a bell. Mabe I am mistaken

Don Johnson's picture

Larry wrote:

My theological issues with George are mostly over Calvinism, so if you are more  or less a Calvinist that wouldn't be an issue. I was just amazed (while using it) at how thorough George was. 

Maybe this is why he is a Calvinist.:D

Isn't he also egalitarian? It's been a while since I used him but this rings a bell. Mabe I am mistaken

possibly. I don't think it comes up much in Galatians. I seem to recall one other area where I differed with him. Must not have been too important as I don't recall what it was

 

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

T Howard's picture

Larry wrote:

My theological issues with George are mostly over Calvinism, so if you are more  or less a Calvinist that wouldn't be an issue. I was just amazed (while using it) at how thorough George was. 

Maybe this is why he is a Calvinist.:D

Isn't he also egalitarian? It's been a while since I used him but this rings a bell. Mabe I am mistaken

I'll find out who, if any, of my commentary authors is an egalitarian when I get to Gal. 3:28.

I generally prefer soteriologically reformed authors. As you can tell, I'm less concerned about their eschatological position. I also limit my authors to generally conservative evangelical authors. So, commentaries by broader evangelical guys like NT Wright or Ben Witherington usually get a pass. If I had more time, however, I would consult them.

B Hawkins's picture

I have T.Georges' commentary on Galatians on my shelf. Since he was one of the signers of the ECT it will stay there. I thank the  Lord my mother when she was young was saved and was delivered from out of the clutches of Rome...and I'll just leave it at that.

Bob

"A bulldog can whip a skunk anytime but it just ain't worth it"

Don Johnson's picture

B Hawkins wrote:

I have T.Georges' commentary on Galatians on my shelf. Since he was one of the signers of the ECT it will stay there. I thank the  Lord my mother when she was young was saved and was delivered from out of the clutches of Rome...and I'll just leave it at that.

Fair enough, but if you cut out of your library everyone who did stupid things, you would have a very small library. As a scholar, George is quality. But each to his own.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.