RIGHTEOUSNESS IN GALATIANS The data

Having recounted how he rebuked Peter at Antioch (2.11–14), Paul launches upon a new topic in a manner translated in the Revised Standard Version as follows:

We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.

(2.15–16) The words translated here as ‘justified’ (a different translation will be offered later) are passive forms of dikaioo¯, which appears three times in v. 16. The theme which Paul so begins at 2.15–16 is further developed in 2.17–2.21, initially with a firm denial that the aim of being justified (dikaioo¯) in Christ when coupled with our personal sinfulness makes Christ a minister of sin (2.17). Then come strong assertions of Paul’s death to the (Mosaic) law to achieve life in God, of his crucifixion with Christ and Christ’s life in him, and of his current life in faith in the Christ who handed himself over on his behalf (2.18–20). Finally, Paul disavows rejecting God’s grace, inasmuch as if dikaiosyne¯ (a noun cognate with dikaioo¯ meaning ‘justification’ or ‘righteousness’) came through the law, then surely Christ died in vain (2.21).

It is worthwhile noting at once that the passive form of the verb dikaioo¯ and the noun dikaiosyne¯ are brought into close proximity in 2.15–

21 and, furthermore, that they are virtually equivalent to the extent that they both designate that which derives from faith in Christ, who died to save but not from the law. The instance of dikaiosyne¯ at Gal. 2.21 looks, indeed, like a climax of what has been said previously in relation to dikaioo¯. The verb dikaioo¯ is used in the present tense in Gal. 2.16, in the aorist tense (which is employed to denote single events, usually in the past) in 2.16 and 2.17 and in the future tense at 2.16, which is probably an allusion to Psalm 143.2 where it relates to judgement before God, although that idea is not made explicit in v. 16 and there is certainly no justification for assuming Paul had the final judgement in mind here.¹

After a section reminding the Galatians that they received the Spirit through faith and not works of the law (3.1–5), which carries the clear implication that the Spirit is like righteousness in being a benefit derived from faith, Paul returns to righteousness language in connection with a discussion of Abraham and the curse of the law (3.6–14). Here he insists that Abraham’s faith was accounted to him as righteousness (dikaiosyne¯, 3.6), that scripture foresaw that God would ‘justify’ (dikaioo¯) the gentiles by faith (3.8) and that those relying on the law are cursed and that it is evident that no one is justified (dikaioo¯) before God by the law, because

‘the righteous person [dikaios] will live by faith’, a citation of Hab. 2.4 (3.11). Both instances of dikaioo¯ are in the present tense.

The verb crops up again at 3.24 (aorist tense) and 5.5 (present tense), in both cases to speak of what comes from faith and not from the law.

The noun dikaiosyne¯ recurs at 3.21, where Paul disconnects it from law, and at 5.5, in a similar context, but with Paul now speaking of how we await ‘the hope of righteousness’ through the Spirit by faith.

In addition to the areas of overlap already noticed in Gal. 2.15–21, we observe that the noun and the verb are brought into close proximity in 3.6–11 and 3.21–24 and into very close proximity in 5.4–5, while the verb and the adjective (dikaios) actually occur together in 3.11. Such connections constitute strong prima facie grounds for proposing a single explanation for these terms, although many commentators, as we will see, prefer a variety of meanings. Unfortunately, there is no modern verb to correspond with ‘righteous’ and if we find it necessary to preserve the unity of the semantic field we may adopt for our verb either the old form ‘rightwise’ (now admittedly enjoying something of a revival in this context) or E.P.Sanders’ useful neologism ‘to righteous’ (1983:6). An alternative proposed below is to translate the passive of the verb as to be or become righteous.

Righteousness as privileged identity 143 Righteousness in the wider context of Galatians

Having now considered the basic data on righteousness in Galatians, it will be helpful to set the subject within the broad context of the letter which we have already considered. This will provide a framework both for the critical discussion of existing approaches in the next section of this chapter and to pave the way for my own reading of righteousness as legitimate identity, which will follow.

The gentile members of the Galatian communities contemplating circumcision considered that they would acquire righteousness as a result.

This view rests largely on the fact that on no fewer than six occasions in the letter (2.16 [thrice]; 2.21; 3.11; 3.21) Paul asserts or implies that righteousness does not come from law.² Fairly unequivocal evidence for this also comes from 5.2–4:

Now I, Paul, say to you that if you are circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I again bear witness to everyone who is circumcised that he is obliged to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who are righteoused [dikaiousthe] by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Here Paul’s statement presupposes that his addressees believed that they would be ‘righteoused’ through circumcision and acceptance of the law.

Since the advocates of righteousness were maintaining that it was to be gained from circumcision, it follows that they must also have thought that it was not to be found among gentiles. It is clear from 2.15 that Paul was well aware that Israelites considered gentiles sinful and he shared their view, at least as far as idolatrous goyim were concerned (see also 4.8). From this it followed that a person could only be or become righteous by crossing the boundary separating Israelites from gentiles to join the House of Israel.

That the gentile members believed, or were at risk of believing, that righteousness was obtained in this way must have resulted from persuasion by Israelite Christ-followers, since these were the Israelites with whom they had the closest dealings. Yet these Israelite members were themselves under pressure from other Israelites to end their anomalous boundary violation with gentiles (Gal. 6.12–13). This means that righteousness must have been at home in the wider Judaic community. The discussion of the law in the Letter of Aristeas which we examined in Chapter 3 brings out this position quite unambiguously;

there righteousness was depicted as essential in designating the condition of Israelites vis-à-vis the gentiles. In this perspective righteousness was

inextricably connected with being an Israelite, with an identity to match, which included the possession of a collection of superior ethical norms which were very distinctive in the Graeco-Roman world. In Galatia it was an aspect of general Israelite experience and belief being urged by the Israelite members of the congregations on the gentile believers due to the pressure being exerted on the former group by the wider Judaic community. Therefore, it is most unlikely to have been some feature peculiar to the theology or experience of Israelite Christ-followers as suggested, for example, by Betz (1979:115–116).

Moreover, the advocates of the Mosaic law must have been presenting righteousness as something desirable. The circumcisers are holding out righteousness as the desirable end produced by the law; righteousness is the prize they have put on offer. To an extent, Paul shares this view.

That he is intent on presenting righteousness as a benefit of belonging to his congregations is apparent in the way he moves to a discussion of the gift of the Spirit in 3.1–5, immediately after he has opened up the topic of righteousness. Moreover, he does not suggest for one moment that righteousness is not worth having, only that it must be obtained by faith in Jesus Christ and not through the law. Our understanding of righteousness, therefore, must be consonant with its evident appeal and attractiveness.

This does not mean, however, that the righteousness which he argues comes from faith in Christ is exactly the same as that being proposed by his opponents. Righteousness was something about which rival groups could compete, a situation also evident in Matt. 5.20, even though the Matthean understanding of righteousness was different to the Pauline (Przybylski 1980). There was nothing to prevent there being two versions of righteousness on offer in Galatia which had some common element while differing in other respects in accordance with their different social locations. The result of this is that while Paul is certainly at issue with his Galatian opponents as to the proper method of acquisition or achievement of righteousness, there may also be some variance in the meaning of the expression on his lips and theirs. In other words, although righteousness, as it has initially been urged on the gentiles from Israelite quarters, cannot have a specifical significance for believers in Christ (as already noted), the version of its meaning advocated by Paul to his Galatian audience as he responds to pressure may acquire such a flavour.

It was a reality capable of redefinition in the struggle between the groups.

Finally, since Paul is talking to people who already belong to his congregations, we are dealing with an issue which relates to how the members will enhance or even perfect their existing membership. As far

Righteousness as privileged identity 145 as Paul is concerned, the issue does not relate to how people ‘get in’, but deals with the character of their ongoing membership, with ‘staying in’.

At the same time, even though the advocates of circumcision may well have been asserting that circumcision was essential to membership, to

‘getting in’ rather than to ‘staying in’, they are likely to have been portraying righteousness as a fruit of entry, part of the glorious condition which came from being a member of a people with ancestors as illustrious as Abraham, not as a condition of entry. Nothing in Galatians suggests that the advocates of circumcision were insisting on righteousness as essential to entry or as a requirement for continuing membership. It was the prize one gained through circumcision.

LANDMARKS IN THE DISCUSSION OF