Galatians

by Cardinal Albert Vanhoye

  Paul does not include the words “of God” from the Hebrew text of Deut 21:23, nor does he include “by God” from the Septuagint. Paul’s text suggests, then, that Christ took on himself the “curse of the law”—that is, the situation of a person guilty of the most serious crimes—but not the “curse of God.” In Christ’s case, the element of personal guilt that draws the curse of God is absent. Externally Christ became “a curse,” but at the deepest level he was more than ever the Son united to the Father in obedience and love (see Gal 1:4). He took the curse on himself for others, “for us,” and this radically changes the significance of Christ’s being hanged on a tree and leads to a vastly more positive outcome (see Isa 53:4–5).

  This result is defined in Gal 3:14 by two parallel clauses that complete one another. The first is so that the blessing of Abraham might be extended to the Gentiles. The second is so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through †faith. In this way Paul suggests a close relationship between the blessing of Abraham and the promise of the Spirit. The two phrases that follow these clauses, through Christ Jesus and through faith, apply to both affirmations: the blessing of Abraham, which, as we have seen, is †justification, and the promised Spirit are received through Christ Jesus and through faith in him. At first glance Paul appears to indicate different recipients of these blessings. On the one hand, the Gentiles receive the blessing of Abraham, while on the other, we receive the Spirit. However, the difference is not as great as it seems, because the “we” includes both those Christians who belong to Israel by birth and those who are Gentiles (“the nations”). In fact, the beginning of the section (3:1–5) recalled that the Galatian Christians, who are Gentiles, have “received the Spirit.”

  The implication is that this marvelous result could not have been attained without removing the obstacle of the law, or more precisely, the curse of the law. The law was not an arbitrary imposition that could simply be ignored to find another path to salvation. The law revealed the true condition of human beings. It revealed that there was an obstacle to the attainment of the promised blessing—that is, human sinfulness. To save the human race, it was necessary for Christ to place himself in our predicament and find a way out. And he did so, paying the price of our redemption himself.

  Reflection and Application (3:7–14)

  It is hard for human beings to accept that they cannot save themselves, that they are not able to truly succeed simply by their own power. It is common, in fact, to see the opposite: to encounter people who think they can chart their course and achieve their life’s goals all on their own without the help of other people or of God. Sometimes we Christians unconsciously adopt a similar attitude. We think that our self-discipline, our good habits, our devotional practices, and our determination to keep God’s †law will see us through.

  And yet human beings must choose between pride and love. If we try to save ourselves by trusting in our moral rectitude, doctrinal orthodoxy, or service to the Church or to the poor, we succumb to pride and are already defeated. St. Paul says very strongly: “All who depend on works of the law are under a curse,” since the law says, “Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law” (3:10), and perfect observance is impossible for fallen human nature. What is true of the law of Moses is true of Christian standards of conduct as well. We fallen creatures need help, and those who accept help are on the path of the kingdom of love, since accepting being saved by Another opens a person to love.

  In this way, †faith introduces us to love. This is a sequence that we can often use to our advantage. When we become aware of our weakness, when we fall short of our resolutions or fall into some sin, two reactions are possible. We can get upset with ourselves because we did not succeed, because we did not do that which we decided to do. This is our spontaneous reaction, but it is not helpful. Instead, we must take advantage of our weakness and of our stumbles to place our trust entirely in God. Rather than be surprised when we fall short, we ought to say to the Lord: “I did not rely sufficiently on you, and this is why I fell. I want to take the occasion of this fall to trust in you and not in myself.” In this way even our failures can help us progress in faith, in love, in humility, and in gratitude.17

  Legal Argument: The Priority of the Promise over the Law (3:15–18)

  15Brothers, in human terms I say that no one can annul or amend even a human will once ratified. 16Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his descendant. It does not say, “And to descendants,” as referring to many, but as referring to one, “And to your descendant,” who is Christ. 17This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to cancel the promise. 18For if the inheritance comes from the law, it is no longer from a promise; but God bestowed it on Abraham through a promise.

  OT: Gen 12:7; 15:13, 18; Exod 12:40–41

  NT: Rom 4:13

  Catechism: Abraham’s descendant, 706

  Beginning with verse 15, the perspective changes. In the preceding section, Paul presented two possible principles on which to build one’s relationship with God, either †faith or the †law, demonstrating that they are mutually exclusive and that the only valid principle is faith. Now the Apostle introduces a legal argument in the light of the history of salvation, which better allows us to understand the relationship between the two opposing principles.18 Verse 16 is a digression that introduces a different line of argument, so we will treat it at the end of the exposition of these verses.

  [3:15]

  Now Paul introduces a new kind of argument. Instead of basing himself on the word of God, as in the preceding section (3:6–14), he now speaks in human terms, drawing on human experience. The Apostle clearly distinguishes between the two sources of knowledge. Reasoning based on human experience is not as compelling as a proof from Scripture (1 Cor 9:8), and at times Paul emphasizes the radical inadequacy of human reasoning (see 1 Cor 1:17; 2:1, 4). Here, however, he makes use of it. The Apostle is not willing to base the content of Christian faith on human reasoning, but he is quite willing to put reason at the service of †faith.

  In this instance Paul presents an argument based on legal principles and concerning a legal document—specifically a will—that has been ratified. The Greek word Paul uses, like English “will,” means a person’s final disposition of his or her possessions. In the †Septuagint the word used here for “will” (diathēkē) translated the Hebrew word for “covenant,” in particular God’s †covenant with his people.

  After the testator dies, it is no longer legally possible to annul or amend the will’s provisions. According to Genesis, God made Abraham certain solemn promises, referred to in Scripture as a covenant, which had the effective value of a will because the promises designate an †inheritance for Abraham and his posterity. Paul has in mind the account in Gen 15 in which God promises Abraham both a descendant who will be his heir and an inheritance. The account concludes, “On that day the Lord made a covenant [diathēkē] with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendant I will give this land’” (Gen 15:18 †LXX).

  Paul clarifies that this will was in force because God had ratified it (Gal 3:17). When Abraham asks God for a confirmation of his promises (Gen 15:8), God responds by carrying out a solemn ancient covenant †ritual, passing through animals that had been cut in half, making his commitment to Abraham irrevocable.19

  [3:17–18]

  Paul’s argument unfolds in verses 17–18 in a clear and compelling manner (we will comment on Paul’s digression in v. 16 after examining these verses). If God made an irrevocable commitment, it was not possible to annul or modify it later. The law came too late, four hundred and thirty years afterward, Paul says, to annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to cancel the promise.20 If receiving the †inheritance promised by God to Abraham’s offspring depends on observing the †law of Moses, that would mean the law has nullified God’s gift. If a man promises a woma
n a diamond necklace as an expression of his love, he cannot then ask her to pay for it! God’s promise to Abraham was in the category of a generous gift. In Gen 15, God did not impose any obligation on Abraham as a condition for receiving the promised inheritance. The law of Moses cannot change that promise after it has been made, since that would be like sending someone a bill for a gift already given.

  Figure 12. Moses by Lawrence the Monk (Piero di Giovanni; Italy, ca. 1408–10). [Public domain. Gwynne Andrews Fund, and Bequest of Mabel Choate, in memory of her father, Joseph Hodges Choate, by exchange, 1965. Photo from the MET.]

  [3:16]

  Now let us return to Paul’s digression in verse 16, where he begins by recalling from Gen 15:18 that the promises were made to Abraham and to his descendant.21 Paul inserts an explanation that is quite surprising. He observes that the word “descendant” (Greek sperma, “seed”) is singular, not plural, and declares that this singular noun refers to Christ. This may seem contrived, because the singular, sperma, like the English “offspring,” can have a collective meaning and describe all of a person’s descendants. Nevertheless, Paul’s interpretation has precedent. Greek authors usually employed sperma to refer to a singular descendant. More importantly, the biblical texts that speak of the promises made to Abraham always use the singular, while the offspring of other biblical characters are often referred to as “sons” in the plural.22 For Paul this detail is full of significance because it corresponds to God’s plan. The promises made by God to Abraham were meant to be fulfilled not through a diffuse progeny but through one particular descendant through whom all others would gain access to the blessings.

  Thus in the story of Abraham, the focusing of the promises on one unique descendant is expressed in a striking manner. The promise to Abraham in Gen 15:18 is not a direct promise of an innumerable multitude of sons but a promise of a single son at the right time, who then would become a multitude. When Abraham is lamenting his lack of heirs, God responds, “Your own offspring will be your heir” (Gen 15:4). The story that follows shows that Isaac is that unique son; Ishmael is excluded (see Gen 21:10, 12). God puts Abraham to the test, asking him to sacrifice his only son (see Gen 22:2, 12, 16). The obedience of Abraham, who did not withhold his beloved son, resulted in having his only son returned and in receiving a solemn confirmation of the promises (see Gen 22:17–18). Isaac too received not the promised †inheritance but only another confirmation of the promise to Abraham for his posterity (see Gen 26:3–4). Thus the story was progressing toward another descendant of Abraham who would truly be the heir capable of conveying that inheritance and blessing to all. This other “unique son” is Christ.

  Paul’s interpretation of the promise to Abraham of a unique descendant is therefore not arbitrary, provided it is situated in the larger context of Scripture and is not presented as the exclusive meaning of Gen 15:18. The other aspect of the promise—a multitude of descendants—far from being denied, will be maintained and powerfully illuminated in Gal 3:29.

  The theological import of Gal 3:1–18 is immense. It provides a biblical model of how Christian doctrine is to be proved, in that Paul’s theological argument is founded on three distinct elements: (1) the decisive event of Christ’s passion and the resurrection, (2) the spiritual experience that results from the proclamation of this event, and (3) the testimony of Scripture. The argument includes three short sections that support Paul’s affirmation in 2:16 that †justification comes by †faith rather than by works of the †law. The first argues on the basis of the Galatians’ experience of faith (3:2–5). The other two make scriptural arguments. One points to the righteousness credited to Abraham because of his faith, combined with the promise that the †nations would find blessing in him (3:6–14); in it the Apostle contrasts the dynamism of faith with the system of the law, showing that they are mutually exclusive. The other demonstrates by a legal argument that God promised to bestow the inheritance on Abraham’s descendant long before the law of Moses existed (3:15–18).

  1. Other instances of the same word in Scripture include Prov 17:28 †LXX; Sir 21:19; 42:8; Rom 1:14; 1 Tim 6:9; Titus 3:3. Jesus uses it to reprove the unbelief of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:25).

  2. Acts attests to such experiences in connection with Christian initiation (Acts 8:14–19; 10:45–46; 19:6), while Paul’s letters mention charisms as a normal aspect of the life of his churches (Rom 12:6–8; 1 Cor 12; 14; 1 Thess 5:19–21).

  3. Elsewhere in the NT, this verb (Greek paschō) is commonly translated “suffer,” leading the ESV to render this phrase, “Did you suffer so many things in vain?”

  4. Another possibility would be to interpret the phrase as “if only it was in vain,” hinting that his readers’ present course could result in a situation that is worse than before (see Gal 5:4). A person who has received †grace and has then been unfaithful to it falls to a lower condition than the person who has not yet received grace. “The last condition of that person is worse than the first” (Matt 12:45; see 2 Pet 2:20–22).

  5. E.g., Isa 7:9; 12:2; 28:16. Although Paul’s teaching is grounded in the Jewish Scriptures, under ordinary circumstances it would not have occurred to Jews in Paul’s day that Gen 15:6 could suggest an opposition between faith and works. For instance, 1 Macc 2:52 takes the phrase from Gen 15:6 that God “credited [it] to him as righteousness” and refers this statement to the incident in which Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22), in which his obedience was understood as faith in action (see James 2:21). The erroneous teaching in Galatia, however, enables Paul to grasp a deeper meaning in Gen 15:6—namely, the priority of believing, of the act of faith, over other actions that necessarily follow. Both interpretations of Gen 15:6 are biblical; understood properly in their contexts, they complement rather than contradict one another.

  6. After naming patterns of unrighteous conduct that exclude a person from the kingdom of God, Paul declares: “That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11, italics added).

  7. See Ralph Martin, “The Post-Christendom Sacramental Crisis: The Wisdom of Thomas Aquinas,” Nova et Vetera, English ed., 11, no. 1 (2013): 57–75.

  8. See “Holy Father’s Speech for the World Congress of Ecclesial Movements and New Communities,” May 27, 1998, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_pc_laity_doc_27051998_movements-speech-hf_en.html.

  9. See Regina Caeli, Solemnity of Pentecost 2008, May 11, 2008, at https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/angelus/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_reg_20080511_pentecoste.html.

  10. “Pope Francis’ Comments and Address at Charismatic Renewal Convention,” ZENIT, June 3, 2014, available at https://zenit.org/articles/pope-francis-comments-and-address-at-charismatic-renewal-convention/.

  11. Programs such as the Life in the Spirit Seminar, the Alpha Course, and ChristLife have helped approximately 150 million Catholics to experience the power of the Holy Spirit by fostering the dispositions that enable the grace of the sacraments to be released and by prayer with the laying on of hands.

  12. The Septuagint says, “all the words of this law” (Deut 27:26 †LXX), but Paul has replaced “words of this law” with “things written in the book of the law,” similar to the wording in Deut 29:19, 20, 26.

  13. Many texts in the Old Testament insist on the necessity of performing certain actions in order to live (e.g., Deut 4:1; 6:24; 30:16; Neh 9:29; Ezek 20:11). The seeming contradiction between what many Old Testament texts say about the law and the lesson Paul draws from Hab 2:4 remains to be resolved. Paul addresses it in Gal 3:19–4:7.

  14. Greek exagorazō.

  15. The †Septuagint translates the verse a bit freely: “Whoever is hanged on a tree is cursed by God.” Paul does not use the adjective “cursed” to characterize Christ; he uses the noun (“a curse”) as the Hebrew text of Deut 21:23 does in its legisl
ation.

  16. See Joseph Fitzmyer, To Advance the Gospel, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 125–46.

  17. Adapted from Cardinal Albert Vanhoye, Il pane quotidiano della Parola: Commento alle letture feriali della Messa ciclo I e II (Casale Monferrato: Piemme, 1994), 720–21.

  18. Chronology takes on greater importance in this part of the argument and continues until 4:7 (see 3:17, 19, 23, 25; 4:1–4, 7).

  19. See Gen 15:9–10, 17. According to ancient custom, the covenant parties passed between the slaughtered animals to invoke a curse on themselves should they ever violate the covenant (see Jer 34:18 for an example of God promising to enforce a covenant sealed in this manner). In the covenant with Abraham, only God passes between the animals, an expression of the Lord’s unilateral commitment to fulfill this promise.

  20. According to most English translations, which are based on the Hebrew text, 430 is the number of years that Israel was enslaved in Egypt (Exod 12:40). Paul, however, follows the †Septuagint version of that verse, which says that the period of 430 years includes both the time of the patriarchs in Canaan and the time of slavery in Egypt. Rabbinic tradition also calculates 430 years between God’s commitment in Gen 15 and the departure from Egypt.