Epistle to the Galatians / Galatians, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 1998 by Hagner, Donald A

The Epistle to the Galatians. Black's New Testament Commentary. By James D. G. Dunn. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993, xxiv 375 pp., n.p. Galatians. IVP New Testament Commentary. By G. Walter Hansen. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994, 212 pp., n.p. Galatians. New American Commentary. By Timothy George. Broadman & Holman, 1994, 463 pp.. $27.99.

Paul's magnificent letter to the Galatians is well served in these three fine commentaries. The bold message of the book requires a matching boldness in the commentator if its message is to accomplish the intended impact. Each of the present commentators is up to the task and will not disappoint the reader.

From the start, these commentaries differ for two main, but relatively incidental, reasons: the nature and intent of the series of which they are a part and the allotted length. None of the commentaries could be described as particularly technical; all could be described as scholarly. While in each case the commentator obviously works from the Greek text, none requires Greek of the reader. Dunn's commentary is based on his own translation, while Hansen and George are in series that use the NIV. Dunn's commentary, the most standard or typical of the three, focuses on the flow of the argument but is also filled with exegesis of the high caliber that we associate with his name. The IVP series of which Hansen's is a part "seeks to move from the text to its contemporary relevance and application" (p. 9). Hansen fulfills this task admirably while at the same time providing careful exegesis of the text, all within the confines of a relatively short book. The most distinctive of the three commentaries, however, is that of George, who writes not from the perspective of a NT specialist but rather from that of a Reformation theologian. George, who has the luxury of the most space, writes expansively and frequently refers to or cites theologians from various eras of Church history.

So far as introductory questions are concerned, there is only a minor difference among the three. On the much-disputed South or North Galatia issue, all three identify the addressees as Christians in South Galatia. On the related matters of the date of the epistle, however, while George accepts an early date for the letter-that is, prior to the Jerusalem council (Gal 2:1-10=Acts 11:27-30)-Dunn and Hansen, perhaps in dependence on Dunn, opt for the unusual combination of the South Galatia hypothesis and a date in the mid-50s (Gal 2:1-10=the Jerusalem council of Acts 15:1-20).

When we turn to the understanding of the theological argument of the letter, however, we encounter a great divide between George and Dunn, with Hansen serving somewhat as a mediating influence (but finally siding with George against Dunn). This we can have expected from the beginning when it was noted that George is a Reformation theologian. George takes what may be called the traditional or familiar view of Galatians, while Dunn presents an interpretation of Galatians that in many ways must be dubbed as nothing less than revolutionary. As is well known, Dunn has become an advocate of the so-called new perspective on Paul derived from the work of E. P. Sanders. A key element of this perspective is that the traditional reading of Paul on the questions of justification and the law has been unduly influenced by the viewpoint of the Reformers. From Dunn's point of view, George's theological admiration for the Reformers is a sure recipe for misunderstanding Paul.

We may illustrate this problem by looking at how Dunn and George exegete certain key passages. Particularly important is the meaning of "works of the law" in 2:16. Dunn denies that this phrase refers to righteous deeds done to establish one's relation to God or to gain God's favor. He argues instead that it refers to the insistence upon boundary markers, in particular circumcision and the food laws, that separated Jews from Gentiles. That is, Paul resists here only the notion that Gentiles must conform to the law as a set of Jewish distinctives in order to obtain salvation. The results of this interpretation, Dunn points out, is that "works of the law" and "faith in Jesus Christ" are "not necessarily being posed here as mutually exclusive antitheses" (p. 137). Paul is thus not talking here about two alternate ways of salvation, i.e. grace versus law, but only about Jewish exclusivism that denied the rightful place of Gentiles in the family of God by faith. George counters with the insistence that "works of the law" refers to the totality of the Mosaic legislation and thus points to the impossibility of the human position before God and hence also to the necessity of salvation by grace. On 2:16 Hansen agrees with Dunn's interpretation, but he does not press this interpretation elsewhere in the letter as Dunn does.

Dunn pursues his hypothesis consistently in passages where the law is in view (such as 3:10-14, 18; 3:21, 24-25; 4:5, 21; 5:1, 13, 18), continuing to insist that the question is not salvation by works versus salvation by faith but the restriction of covenant grace to Israel versus the inclusion of the Gentiles apart from circumcision, the food laws and Sabbath observances. The contrasting children of Sarah and Hagar in 4:21-31, moreover, portray for Dunn not the old and new covenants but two aspects of the Abrahamic covenant: the law covenant and the promise covenant. In keeping with his perspective, Dunn understands 6:16 to refer to two groups: the Church, "those who walk by this rule," and the Jews, "the Israel of God." In short, Galatians has no polemic against the law as such, or against Jews who would live by the law, but only with those who want to impose the law upon Gentiles.