Read Better, Preach Better

ὡς προειρήκαμεν

καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω·

↓εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται (παρ᾿ ὃ παρελάβετε),

ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

It is commonly assumed that Paul simply repeats himself in this verse, underscoring through repetition the pronouncement of a curse upon those who proclaim a false gospel. Certainly there are obvious parallels with the previous verse: the use of a conditional sentence; the same form of the same verb, εὐαγγελίζεται; and the same curse formula, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. But there are three differences from the previous verse that set this verse apart, which will be explored in turn.

First, it appears that Paul announces his ‘repetition’—As we have said before, I now say again—but this is not the most likely reading of the first half of this verse. The clue is the switch of number between the two verbs, as we have said and I now say again. While the epistle is sent from Paul and the brothers with him (1.2), it would be strange to regard verse 8 as something declared by the group, while verse 9 is declared by Paul alone. An additional factor, while less compelling, adds some support to this point: why does Paul need to say as we have said before if he is simply referring to the previous verse? Surely this would be redundant, and Paul could easily have flagged the repetition with I will say it again, or some variation, as he does in Philippians 4.4. Rather, Paul is alluding to something that has previously been communicated by the Pauline group to the Galatians, perhaps through face-to-face discussion. And what this previous communication involved leads to the second difference between this verse and the previous one.

Second, verse 8 warns of the consequences for Paul and his group, or an angel, should they alter the gospel—But even if we or an angel from heaven—while verse 9 warns of the same consequences for anyone (τις) who does so. While verse 8 depicted an unlikely hypothetical situation, in which Paul would proclaim a false gospel, verse 9 refers to something far more likely; in fact, some apparently are changing the gospel of Christ (1.7). This is the message that was previously communicated to the Galatians; if anyone proclaims an altered gospel, let him be accursed.

Third, verse 8 refers to an altered gospel as a gospel other than what we have preached to you, while verse 9 refers to an altered gospel as a gospel contrary to what you received. The genuine gospel is not only the one that Paul proclaimed; it is the one that the Galatians first accepted. Indeed, this is the gospel that created the churches in Galatia. This difference between verse 9 and the preceding verse complements the second difference in that the focus has been removed from Paul and his group: in verse 8 it is Paul and his group (and/or an angel) who stand condemned for preaching a false gospel, while in verse 9 it is anyone; in verse 8 the authentic gospel is the one we preached to you, while in verse 9 it is the one you received. The effect of this is to widen the issue beyond Paul and his apostolic witness. Ultimately this is not about whether someone challenges Paul and his authority; it is about the integrity of the gospel.

Indeed, one effect of verses 8 and 9 in the context is to demonstrate that the integrity of the gospel message is bigger than Paul’s apostleship. While we have seen that his apostleship is a significant issue for this epistle (1.1), even that does not trump the true message. If the apostle Paul and the authentic gospel were to clash, Paul has made it clear that the gospel triumphs. And this fact helps to prepare us for the apostolic quarrel between Paul and Peter (2.11–14) in that one apostle may rebuke another if the truth of the gospel is at stake. It shows the Galatians that even the great apostle Peter can be wrong, and that they must adhere to the authentic gospel even if that means taking a path contrary to Peter and his followers.

Posted by Con Campbell

ἀλλὰ  ↓καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ) εὐαγγελίζηται [ὑμῖν]

(παρ᾿ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν),

ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

The fact that there is no other gospel is not a mere intellectual issue; it has grave significance, for if another gospel (which is no gospel at all) is proclaimed other than that already proclaimed to the Galatians by Paul, those responsible are to be accursed. In fact, this verse underscores the grave significance of both the gospel message and the responsibility of those who proclaim it. On the one hand, the message itself must not be corrupted or changed on penalty of a curse. On the other hand, so serious is this message that those who proclaim a corrupted or changed message are held responsible. In other words, the integrity of the message is on view as well as the responsibility of those who proclaim it. There is no apparent leeway for those who proclaim a false gospel out of ignorance or good intentions; this verse contains no escape clauses. Without a doubt, this is one of the strongest and most sobering verses in Paul’s entire corpus.

The strong adversative ἀλλὰ sets the direction of the verse in that while there may be some who desire to change the gospel of Christ (1.7), Paul completely undermines their authority by saying that if even we or an angel from heaven should do this the consequences would be catastrophic—let alone anyone else. The verse is structured as a third class conditional sentence (ἐὰν + subjunctive in the protasis),[1] with a third person imperative in the apodosis (ἔστω). While third class conditions can convey ‘a broad range of potentialities in Koine Greek’,[2] Paul uses the construction to express a hypothetical situation, which he no doubt regards as being extremely unlikely: he and his coworkers are hardly going to begin to proclaim a different gospel, and nor is an angel from heaven likely to do so. And yet, while such a scenario seems highly unlikely, the prospect of others doing so is not remote; in fact, the proclamation of a false gospel has provided the very impetus for the epistle.

The verb εὐαγγελίζω in general usage refers to the announcement of good news, and in biblical usage refers more specifically to the proclamation of the divine message of salvation (BDAG). What Paul considers to be key to this message of salvation will be explored elsewhere, but for now it is clear that the message that was originally received by the Galatians is the genuine article; anything else is not. The preposition παρά with the accusative case can refer to ‘that which does not correspond to what is expected’ with the meaning of against, contrary to (BDAG), which is its most likely function here. Paul has in mind any proclamation of the good news that stands against, or contradicts, that which was originally preached by him to the Galatians.

While the word ἀνάθεμα can be positive or negative—a votive offering or something accursed (BDAG)—the biblical usage of the word is almost entirely negative (cf. Luke 21.5). While it is unclear in this context precisely what Paul means by ἀνάθεμα ἔστω, it is obviously negative, and his use of ἀνάθεμα in Romans 9.3 seems to imply that it refers to being separated from Christ: For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from the  Messiah for the benefit of my brothers, my countrymen by physical descent. The phrase cut off is supplied by translations in order to capture the sense of ἀνάθεμα […] ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. In other words, Paul literally says accursed […] from Christ, demonstrating that to be accursed involves being separated from him.

Thus we see in this verse Paul pronouncing a curse on himself or an angel should they preach an alternative gospel. And yet, such a curse, which involves being separated from Christ, is at the same time a natural consequence of deviating from the true gospel. Since it is through the gospel message that people are united to Christ, it follows that a false gospel will leave others separate from Christ. On one level, then, Paul’s pronouncement is not particularly harsh or vindictive; it is simply the logical consequence of a false gospel.

Posted by Con Campbell

[2] Wallace, 696.

↑ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο,

↑εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς

↑καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Paul clarifies that another gospel (1.6) is no gospel at all, for the simple reason that there is no other gospel. In spite of this, there are some who are troubling the Galatians because they want to change (μεταστρέψαι) the gospel of Christ.

This verse introduces two significant elements to the epistle. First, Paul is deliberately opposing a specific group. It would appear that these ‘troublers’ spread their changed gospel through preaching (1.8–9), and they are regarded by Paul as false brothers (ψευδαδέλφους), who desired to spy on the freedom in Christ Jesus in order to enslave us (2:4). It is no doubt the same group that is described as the circumcision party (2.12), and is the subject of Paul’s rhetorical question Who has bewitched you? (3.1). They are apparently enthusiastic about the Galatians, but for self-interested gain (4.17). A second rhetorical question indicates that they had prevented the Galatians from obeying the truth (5.7), and will pay the penalty for it (5.10); indeed, Paul wishes that they would get themselves castrated (5.12). The motivations of the group are described as wanting to make a good showing in the flesh in order to avoid being persecuted (6.12)—by compelling the Galatians to be circumcised—and to boast about the Galatians, even though they themselves don’t keep the law (6.13).

Second, this verse introduces the concept that to alter the gospel is to create a new—and therefore false—gospel. Much of the epistle will be consumed by this underlying presupposition: the truth of the gospel must not be compromised in any way, and the consequence of proclaiming an altered gospel is no less than anathema (1.8­–9). Paul goes to lengths to demonstrate that his gospel is not his own invention, but was revealed to him by God (1.11–12), a fact that is crucially related to his divine apostleship (1.1). And yet, while he is sent by God to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles (1.1; 2.7), he includes himself in the severe warning of 1.8–9: even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! The matter of altering the gospel is of such gravity that it would even undo Paul’s own authority as an apostle, if ever he were guilty of it.

Posted by Con Campbell

For anyone interested, here’s a proposal that David Peterson and I have sketched out for our planned commentary on Galatians. Keen to hear your feedback, suggestions, and publishing offers!

Posted by Con Campbell

Galatians: from exegesis to sermon

• A new type of commentary is proposed, particularly designed to help students and pastors with intermediate Greek skills or above move from exegesis to preaching.
• The proposed co-authors are currently colleagues in the New Testament Department at Moore Theological College in Sydney, Australia.   Constantine Campbell has published three books on verbal aspect in Biblical Greek, and is keen to apply his knowledge of Greek grammar and syntax to a piece of sustained exegesis.  David Peterson has published several books in the area of Biblical Theology, and has recently finished the Pillar New Testament Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles.  He also wrote Christ and his People in the Book of Isaiah (Leicester: IVP, 2003), dealing with hermeneutical issues associated with preaching Christ from the OT.  Both authors regularly seek to preach from the Greek New Testament.
• Many seminary graduates are reasonably competent to translate the NT into English, but find it difficult to know how to use commentaries on the Greek text with profit.  These commentaries are often too technical and full of information that is not immediately relevant to the task of exposition and preaching.  Students and pastors can find it hard to discern ‘the wood’ from ‘the trees’.
• Guidance is rarely given in commentaries about how to expound the biblical text and preach it to a contemporary audience.  Where guidance is given, it is often based on a theological or pastoral theme running through the passage, rather than on the structure and flow of the argument in each paragraph.
• In particular, students and pastors sometimes fail to see how a knowledge of Greek grammar and syntax can help them discern the structure and meaning of a passage and move on to exposition and application.
• Books on preaching mostly do not begin at this level of analysis.  But W. C. Kaiser Jr., Towards an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) offered a helpful way forward, proposing the need for contextual, syntactical, verbal, theological, and then homiletical analysis of a text.
• To some extent, we would follow Kaiser’s model in the interpretation of Galatians.  The aim would be to fill a significant gap in the literature by applying these different, but related levels of analysis to an important Pauline letter.
• M. Silva, Explorations in Exegetical Method: Galatians as a test case (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996; 2nd ed. 2001), provided many valuable insights and examples to aid the student of Galatians, without a running commentary or consistent attempt to show how to preach from this text.
• The Zondervan Exegetical Commentary series provides structural diagrams of the English text and has context and structure sections, while also offering guidelines for application. A key difference that the proposed commentary will offer is analysis of the Greek structure and syntax, and how these things contribute to the exposition of each passage. Another important distinction is the goal of providing guidance for the preaching of each passage, and not only application.

Distinctive character and contribution

1. The proposed commentary will major on showing how the grammar and syntax of the Greek text expose the argument and structure of the letter.  Galatians will be exegeted both as a model for approaching other NT letters, and also because of its distinctive importance in the Canon of Scripture.
2. The introduction to the commentary will deal with the usual issues in a summary way, but will major on discussing the best way to use Greek for exegesis and homiletic analysis.
3. As distinctive matters of grammar and syntax emerge in the exposition, footnotes will direct readers to technical sources where they may explore such issues more fully and learn more about the way Greek is used by Paul.
4. Theological matters will be discussed as they emerge from the exegesis.  When controversial issues are discussed, such as ‘works of the law’, a summary and evaluation of current debates will be provided in a separate paragraph.  The aim at this point will not be to analyse such issues exhaustively.
5. An introductory section on context will seek to show the place of each exegetical unit and its thought in the argument of the letter as a whole.  The aim will be to make the flow of Paul’s argument clear at all times.
6. A concluding section to each expository unit will consider the implications of the exegesis and theological analysis for preaching.  In particular, a structure for preaching will be argued from the structure of the Greek text and themes for homiletic development will be suggested.
7. The commentary will thus show preachers how to move from Greek exegesis to sermon construction.  It will not be exhaustive in dealing with textual, grammatical, syntactical or theological issues, but will equip the reader to explore any of these areas more fully, using other commentaries and resources.

Method of approaching each exegetical unit

1. The Greek text of each passage under review will first be presented in a sentence flow diagram, using the text of The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition, 1993).
2. An English translation will then be provided in a sentence flow diagram matching the way the Greek has been presented.
3. Textual notes will then follow.  The aim will be to examine significant textual variants and to guide readers in the process of evaluation by regular reference to the judgments of B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition) (2^nd ed.; Stuttgart/New York: United Bible Societies, 1994).
4. The context of the passage will then be discussed, giving particular attention to its significance in the flow of the argument.
5. The structure of the passage in Greek will then be examined, providing an analysis of the syntax and showing how this is an aid to exegesis.  This step is often lacking in commentaries on the Greek text, leaving many readers confused about the relative importance of various grammatical and syntactical matters.  It will be shown how this step anticipates and prepares for the homiletic structure suggested at the conclusion of each exegetical section.
6. The exegesis and meaning of the passage will then be explored, drawing on the insights gained from the preceding sections and from close attention to the details of the text.  Interaction with the insights of other scholars will be particularly obvious at this stage in the interpretive process.  As noted above, areas of great debate with regard to theological meaning and significance may be summarised in a separate paragraph, with an indicative bibliography.
7. Finally a structure for preaching will be offered, together with guidance about the way the main emphases of the passage may be preached.  A series of expository sermons on Galatians will be suggested, unfolding and applying the apostle’s argument to contemporary church situations.

Θαυμάζω ὅτι

οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε (ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς) (ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ])

(εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον),

Paul ends his greeting abruptly by targeting the heart of the issue that has given rise to this epistle: his readers are turning to another gospel. Quite frankly, Paul is astonished (Θαυμάζω) at how quickly this false-direction has taken root. Paul does not restrain his disapproval, and this move at so early a stage will set the tone for most of the epistle.

It is hard to imagine that turning to another gospel would be acceptable under any circumstances, and so Paul’s use of quickly (ταχέως) does not suggest that a slower migration to a different gospel would have been less problematic. Rather, the adverb adds insult to injury: not only are the Galatians turning away, they are doing so remarkably quickly. The key verb here is turning away (μετατίθεσθε), which refers to a change of mind in allegiance, or desertion (BDAG). The present indicative expresses imperfective aspect, and here depicts an activity in progress; it is a ‘progressive present’.[1]

The rest of the verse is concerned with what the Galatians are turning from and what they are turning to: they are turning from the One who called them; they are turning to another gospel. The first thing to notice here is the fact that Paul does not juxtapose an original gospel with another gospel; rather he juxtaposes a person with another gospel. To turn to another gospel denotes turning away from the One who called them (τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς). The aorist participle is substantival, referring to a person, but also implies a past activity due to its perfective aspect.

The concept of calling occurs three more times in the epistle: once with reference to Paul’s own calling (1.15); twice with reference to the Galatians (5.8, 13). While the subject of such calling is left unstated in all but 1.15—which has God as the one who calls—it seems most likely that he is to be understood as the one calling. This is particularly fitting here in 1.6, since the next phrase indicates the instrumentality of the grace of Christ (ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ]), and, as we have seen in 1.3-5, this instrumentality of the Son works in partnership with the agency of the Father. Thus, it is best to take the One calling you as expressing the agency of the Father, while by the grace of Christ as the instrumentality of the Son. While it is God the Father who calls people to himself, this occurs through the grace extended by the Son. It may be better to say, then, that another gospel is juxtaposed with two persons rather than one.

Paul will announce in the next verse that another gospel is no gospel at all, but for now it is important to note the significance of the contrast achieved here between this ‘false’ gospel and the Father and Son. To turn to another gospel is not simply an issue of incorrect doctrine; it leads away from God himself. And to further underscore the significance of this, Paul has subtly referred to the work of the Father in calling them in the first place, as well as the character of their salvation, which is by grace. This may be intended to contrast the false gospel; elsewhere Paul contrasts grace with being justified by the law: You who are trying to be justified by the law are alienated from Christ; you have fallen from grace! (5.4; cf. 2.21).

Posted by Con Campbell

P 46

A few posts ago, I mentioned that a senior colleague and I were toying with the idea of writing a commentary on Galatians together. Well, as of Friday, David Peterson and I are ‘officially’ going to attempt this.

This is exciting for two reasons.

First, we are attempting to contribute a new type of commentary. It is explicitly for preachers, modeling how to move from Greek text to sermon. It seems to us that there is a bit of a gap between Greek exegetical skills and how the insights gained from exegesis should relate to the content of a sermon. We want to help to fill that gap.

Second, it is an absolute privilege to work with David Peterson on this. He has just published an extraordinary commentary on Acts in the Pillar series, and was the Principal of Oak Hill College, London, for eleven years. His experience, insight, and great exegetical ability will contribute a huge amount to this project.

So, I’m going to continue to post my thoughts about the text of Galatians, verse by verse. I’m keen to have your feedback as we go, knowing that your thoughts may end up in our commentary!

PS – no, we don’t have a publisher yet.

Posted by Con Campbell

1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος οὐκ (ἀπ᾿ ἀνθρώπων) οὐδὲ (δι᾿ ἀνθρώπου)

ἀλλὰ (διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν (ἐκ νεκρῶν)),

2 καὶ οἱ (σὺν ἐμοὶ) πάντες ἀδελφοὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας,

3 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη (ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ)

4 ↑[τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν (ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν)],

↑[ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς (ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ)]

↑[(κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν)],

5 ↑[ᾧ ἡ δόξα (εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων), ἀμήν].

The passage divides into two reasonably distinct sections. Verses 1–2 can be seen as a unit that describes the divinely appointed apostleship of Paul. Verses 3–5 focus on the self-giving of the Son for sins in order to rescue people from the present evil age, all according to the will of the Father. A unifying feature between 1–2 and 3–5 appears to be the agency of God: it is through God that Paul is an apostle, and Jesus’ rescue of sinners is according to the Father’s will. The ultimate agency of God stems from his will and results in his glory.

In this way, the agency of God is an all-encompassing theme that binds these verses together, and thus is properly viewed as the key message of the passage. While it will no doubt be tempting to focus—perhaps exclusively—on 1.4b–c and the death of Christ to rescue sinners, this needs to be appreciated within the broader theme of the agency of God. This is not to say that preaching on the passage should not include a serious treatment of 1.4b–c, but simply that it should be taken in its proper context.

As such, I would suggest a sermon structure with two main sections: 1. God’s apostle; 2. God’s glory. Within section 1, I would include subpoints dealing with Paul’s divine apostleship as opposed to any human authority or agency. Within section 2, I would include subpoints dealing with Christ’s death for sin and rescue from this evil age, and the will and glory of the Father. The structure of the talk might look as follows:

1. God’s apostle

a. Not by human authority

b. Divinely appointed

2. God’s glory

a. Death and rescue

b. The will and glory of God

Finally, it’s worth reflecting on what I’d leave out of a sermon on this passage. The main criteria for these decisions rests with what issues or items are least related to the main points of the passage. As such, I think verse 2 can safely be excluded, though perhaps a passing reference to the fact that Paul is addressing a group of congregations could be in order. More controversially, I don’t think I would give much time to the Father’s raising the Son from the dead (1.1b), except to highlight the agency of God in the passage. While it seems counterintuitive to ‘ignore’ the resurrection, the fact is that it is not an explicit theme of Galatians, and does not feature in this passage. Having said that, it might be mentioned with reference to the aforementioned agency of God, and possibly also in relation to the Son’s rescue of sinners; while this is explicitly connected to his self-giving in death, the resurrection might be included as part of that discussion.

Posted by Con Campbell

↑[(κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν)],

↑[ᾧ ἡ δόξα (εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων), ἀμήν].

Verse 1.4c provides a third dependent clause expanding on the standard greeting of 1.3. This time we are told of the agency of God in the apocalyptic rescue of 1.4b, which is in turn the purpose of the self-giving of Christ (1.4a): it is according to the will of our God and Father. As indicated above, this phrase underscores the Trinitarian nature of the apocalyptic rescue that was enacted through the death of Christ for sins. God the Father willed these events, and so was the ultimate ‘agent’ to the ‘instrument’ of Christ. The notion of the agency of the Father expressed through the instrumentality of the Son is commonly found in Paul, and appears elsewhere in this epistle: God called the Galatians by the grace of Christ (1.6); God sent his Son to redeem those under the law (4.4–5).

The phrase τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν is correctly translated of our God and Father, rather than of God and our Father, because of Granville Sharp’s Rule. In this kind of construction—an article followed by two personal nouns joined by καὶ, but without an article before the second noun—the two nouns refer to the same person (see Wallace, 271, for more details). Thus, the personal pronoun ἡμῶν is best understood as qualifying both nouns rather than just the second; hence our God and Father offers the best translation.

Verse 5 reveals that God the Father is not only the ultimate agent of the apocalyptic rescue in 1.4b; his glory is also the ultimate goal of this work. The work of Christ in rescuing us from sin is willed by the Father and results in the Father’s glory, which lasts forever and ever (εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων). This phrase provides a direct contrast to the present evil age of 1.4b (τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ); the evil age is present only; the glory of God is forever.

Posted by Con Campbell

↑[ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς (ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ)]

This part of verse 4 indicates the purpose (ὅπως) of Christ’s self-giving for our sins (1.4a) through a subordinate subjunctive clause. This purpose is to rescue us from this present evil age. The verb here translated as rescue (ἐξαιρέω) has a basic sense of to tear out, to take out, and by extension to deliver, to rescue. Thus we see that the purpose of Christ’s death for sins was to rescue.

The following phrase requires careful thought: Christ died in order to rescue us from the present evil age. What exactly does Paul refer to by this present evil age? The word translated age (αἰώνιος) occurs three more times in the epistle; the next two occurrences are found in the following verse: forever and ever (1.5). Perhaps more significantly, the word occurs at the end of the epistle with respect to the ‘age’ that may be contrasted with the evil age of 1.4b: the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit (ζωὴν αἰώνιον; 6.8). The ‘age’ of life is to be distinguished sharply from the present evil age.

While Paul does not use language approximating the present evil age again in the epistle, he does appear to refer to the same reality in 4.3 when he says that we were in slavery under the elemental forces of the world (see also 4.9). By saying when we were (ὅτε ἦμεν) in 4.3, Paul indicates a former reality that is no longer extant for believers. It follows, then, that this former reality is the very thing from which believers have been delivered, thus correlating the elemental forces of the world (4.3) with the present evil age (1.4b). Furthermore, we know that the delivery out of this present evil age—and from slavery under the elemental forces of the world—has occurred through Christ’s crucifixion for sins (1.4a).

This mention of the present evil age introduces the apocalyptic framework that is evident throughout the epistle. Paul demarcates sharply between the old age and the new—as we see here in 1.4b—and also several times speaks of revelation: his gospel was received by revelation from Jesus Christ (1.12); God was pleased to reveal his Son in Paul (1.15–16); Israel was confined under the law until the coming faith was revealed (3.23). Both features—the marked distinction between old and new, and knowledge through revelation—are hallmarks of apocalyptic thinking. In sum, then, 1.4b presents the purpose of Christ’s death as a rescue mission of apocalytpic proportions.

Posted by Con Campbell

χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη (ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ)

↑[τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν (ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν)],

Grace to you and peace is a standard greeting for Paul, as are the descriptions of God as our Father and Jesus Christ as Lord. What is of particular interest is the way in which Paul expands on this characteristic greeting. With a turn of phrase that is clearly significant for the unfolding themes of the epistle, his mention of the Lord Jesus Christ is modified by the participial subordinate clause the one giving himself for our sins. While the aorist participle δόντος is substantival, its perfective aspect nevertheless contributes the nuance that the substantivalized action is past-referring, thus should be translated the one who gave (himself).

Christ’s self-giving for sins can only refer to his death on the cross, though that language is not explicit here. In 2.19–20, however, Paul explicitly connects Christ’s giving of himself with his crucifixion: Paul has been crucified with Christ (2.19), and he lives by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (2.20). The wording in 2.20 is remarkably similar to 1.4a: τοῦ […] παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ employs a substantive aorist participle in the genitive case with a lexeme (παραδίδωμι) that is cognate with the substantive aorist genitive participle of 1.4 (δίδωμι); both verses also use ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ. The key distinction between these phrases in 1.4 and 2.20 is that 1.4 indicates that Christ gave himself for our sins, whereas in 2.20 Paul identifies himself as a beneficiary of Christ’s self-giving: he gave himself for me. In any case, the mention of crucifixion in 2.19 connects to Christ’s self-giving in 2.20, thus confirming the obvious, though implicit, reference to Christ’s death in 1.4a. He gave himself for our sins in his crucifixion.

Christ’s self-giving underscores two important points. First, it is for our sins, which introduces a theme that will resonate through the epistle. Most specifically, Paul points out in 3.13 that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, because it is written: Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree. The citation from Deuteronomy 21:23 confirms that Paul is referring to crucifixion (hung on a tree), and it was thus through his crucifixion that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law. Clearly the curse of the law arises due to sin, thus implictly connecting Christ’s crucifixion with sin. To redeem us from the curse of the law, Christ must have somehow dealt with the sin that gave rise to the curse. Thus, through the connection between sin and the curse of the law, we see that 3.13—a vital part of Paul’s argument in 3.6–26—is implicitly tied to 1.4a, which states that Christ gave himself (through crucifixion) for our sins. While we will not explore this here, it is also clear that 3.6–26 forms an indispensible step in the logic of the argument through the epistle. Since 3.13 is key to that step in the argument, and is implicitly tied to 1.4a, we note that the phrase the one who gave himself for our sins in 1.4a does indeed introduce a theme of great significance.

Second, Paul explicitly refers to the self-giving of Christ in 1.4a (and in 2.20). His crucifixion for our sins, and becoming a curse for us, was his own action. This must be held together with the notion raised in the last part of the verse that indicates that this was according to the will of our God and Father (1.4c). Truly, the death of Christ was Trinitarian in nature, as the Father willed it and the Son gave himself to it. Notice, however, that the Father’s will does not reduce the self-giving of the Son to some kind of automated or enforced enactment of that will. It is possible that Paul deliberately included both phrases in the same breathe to make precisely that point: the will of Father is fulfilled through the decision of Christ.

Posted by Con Campbell