Paul, Sin, and Galatians

This last run through Galatians has convinced me more than ever that Paul's theology of sin and the Law is far from a systematic theology. He is making rhetorical arguments against opponents, grasping at explanations for end conclusions. Many of his statements have to be held in tension, and in tension they are.

What this means is that a neo-Arminian or a neo-Calvinist approach to Paul's writings should acknowledge from the start that they are working beyond Paul, that they are creating a systematic view of such things in a way that Paul did not. This acknowledgement of course raises the question of how one goes about systematizing Pauline theology. Here the historical traditions come into play--and of course a fuller appreciation for other theologies within the pages of the Bible, understood within the worldviews of the original contexts.

All that is neither here nor there. I want briefly to address this question: If all we had were Galatians, what theology of sin would we perceive Paul to have?

The first passage to deal with is Galatians 2:15-21. In this passage Paul moves from 1) acknowledging that Gentiles are sinners to 2) the conclusion that Jews, even Jewish believers, are sinners too. This side of Galatians we might summarize as Those who are under Law are sinners.

How is this the case? This is the case because they are judged by the Law. When they are judged by the Jewish Law, they are concluded to be "transgressors" (2:18). No one completely keeps the Law, so those who attempt to be found righteous before God on this basis will fail. Indeed, such individuals are under a curse (3:10).

At the end of Galatians, Paul suggests that even those who would urge the Galatians to be circumcised do not keep the Law (6:13), at least not to his standards. Indeed, he accuses even Peter in 2:14 of being hypocritcal because he expects Gentile converts at Antioch to follow the Jewish Law when he himself is far from a model on that score.

Justification in the context of the Jewish Law, therefore, is a matter of grace. One is deemed right with God because Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law (3:13). Faith constitutes a different "righteousing system" from "works of Law," by which Paul primarily but not exclusively refers to specifics of the Jewish Law that most distinguished Jew from Gentile.

BUT, Paul then smuggles a certain kind of works back into the equation "post-justification." We might call this side of Paul's ethic: Certain works will keep you from being justified and Believers' lives will have certain works.

As a side note, it is problematic even to speak of "post-justification," for justification ultimately looks to the future Day of Christ (2:17; 5:5). The ambiguity in Paul's thought between present and future justification is the focal point of tension in his thought on faith and works. In relation to the Jewish past, it is justification by faith not works. In relation to Christian ethics, it is justification by faith in conjunction with certain expected and rejected "works."

We do not see this emphasis on "post-believing" works as much in Galatians as in other passages in Paul's writings. His argument in Galatians 3-4 views the Law as slavery and following the Law as enslavement to the weak, impoverished elements of the world (4:9). In the central part of Galatians he argues for freedom from the Law as a standard of life and living.

Now in chapter 5 he turns the other way and urges them not to use their freedom as an opportunity for their flesh (5:13). They are to follow the essence of the Law, which is love (5:14). The Spirit is presented as the empowerment not to gratify the desires of one's flesh (5:16). What this means is that a Christian's life will manifest the fruit of the Spirit (5:22-23) and not the works of the flesh (5:19-21). These are works that a believer cannot do, and if a believer does them, that person will not inherit the kingdom of God (5:21). What a person sows, they will reap (6:7).

What we seem to find is that while works cannot qualify you for justification, certain works can disqualify you. Further, certain behaviors are required of believers. Paul has no well worked out theology here of works resulting from justification and the Spirit, although he might very well be happy with such a harmonization of his statements. He simply says that what counts as far as justification before God is "faith working through love" (5:6).

The great systems of Calvinism and Arminianism, both rooted in the harmonizations of Augustine, are reasonable systematizations of Paul's thought if we acknowledge the point where non-Pauline theological "glue" is introduced into the system.

However, Paul's thinking seems much more "street" level thinking. He asserts the following things without working out the details:

1. Works of Law (especially the most distinctively Jewish ones) do not justify before God.
2. No one can keep the Jewish Law completely.
3. Believers are free from this Law.
4. Believers are justified by Jesus' faith and their faith in God.
5. Believers will not be justified if they behave a certain way.
6. The Spirit empowers the right way of behaving, the "fruit of the Spirit."