A commentary on Paul's Letter to the Galatians.

The Brazos Theological Commentary series tends to want to highlight various theological premises and particular contributions of a given text to our theological understanding. Greene-McCreight did not disappoint in this regard; she well highlighted the various ways in which Paul’s Letter to the Galatians thus contributed to our understanding of Paul’s perspective on theology and on theology in general.

In the epilogue Greene-McCreight grappled with how to best understand the relationship between the church and Israel in light of Galatians. One can tell how constrained she felt by Protestant mixing of covenants and an intense desire to stay as far away as possible from anything resembling supersessionism or “replacement theology”, coming up with the neologism “infrasessionism” to attempt to explain the situation. Her claim no Jewish people were part of the churches of Galatia seems a bit strong for the evidence, and thus her conclusion that Galatians says nothing about how Paul considered the relationship between Jewish Christians and the Law of Moses proves a bit baffling. Paul never declaimed his Judaism; but he did speak of how in Christ there is neither Jewish nor Gentile (Galatians 3:28), considered himself as having died to the Law and crucified with Christ (Galatians 2:20-21), and spoke at length regarding how “we” were under the paidagogos until faith in Christ came, after which the paidagogos no longer had any authority over him.

I understand the concerns regarding the ugly heritage of antisemitism in Christendom and how flippant many who uphold a form of supersessionism/replacement theology can prove. Yet as in all things religious, let alone Christianity, so much distortion and error derives from over-reactions to the bad doctrinal and practical views and actions of others. Yes, Paul did see points of continuity; he asked God to bring peace and mercy on the Israel of God, after all, and considered all who share in Abraham’s faith as children of Abraham. There’s no ground for Marcionism in Galatians. But the problem in Galatia were “Judaizers,” those attempting to impose circumcision and Jewish rituals on Gentile Christians, and those Christians were not to tolerate anything of the sort.

Nevertheless, a good resource while exploring Galatians.

If one is asked to summarize what the letter to the Galatians is about, many people might conclude that it is all about justification by faith. Yet, there are many alternative interpretations that range from freedom in Christ to anti-semitic accusations. How do we practice discerning which best approaches the Truth for such a range of interpretations? Humbly speaking, we need help. The commentators in this series of commentaries believe that this help comes from interpreters from the Nicea-Constantinople tradition. They might not give us the full revelation of Truth but they can surely clear the way for us to approach it.

Dogmas clarify rather than obscure. This is the conviction behind this series of theological commentaries. Based on the Nicene tradition, the authors in this series affirm the Scriptures amid a tide of modern scholars who insist that ancient doctrinal persuasions are barriers to the "purity" of the biblical text. The intent of these modern interpreters is noble but it masquerades the fact that such modernist thinking is also a form of "doctrinal persuasion" in itself. The underlying belief is that the Nicene tradition "provides the clarifying principles" to guide our understanding of the Scriptures. After all, these ancient fathers are definitely closer to biblical times than we are. If Bible reading is communal, why not include these Nicean fathers in our interpretive process? Adopting a Both-And framework has more benefits compared to an Either-Or option. Preferring to engage theologians instead of biblical scholars, the commentary is essentially one that resembles "systematic theology" style instead of "biblical theology."

My Thoughts
==============
We are living in fast times of change. These changing contexts have influenced the way we read and interpret the Bible. In wanting to get closer to the Truth, some have adopted misguided approaches to achieve this objective. One such approach is the blanket desire to neutralize any gendered language into nongendered versions which unwittingly alienates the original context based on modern pretexts. Sharing her experience when trying to translate the original Greek into non-gendered languages, KGM acknowledges that such attempts change the theological message, especially in Galatians. She reminds us that sometimes, the way to go about gender justice is not to change the medium but to adopt a pastoral approach. In other words, we should not hastily change the Bible's language just to address a modern form of injustice. Using circumcision as an example, how do we nullify such gender metaphors without changing the original message? Gradually, we learn that while we are generally agreed that Paul's key emphasis is justification by faith, the ways to argue this Truth can be compromised when we fail to consider the original contexts. This is why theological underpinnings are crucial to preserving the integrity of the message. With this understanding, we can see how and why the author prefers to work with rather than replace ancient wisdom. This is consistent with the principle of communal interpretation rather than individual. While many commentaries are mainly by individuals, they could not have achieved it merely on their own strength and wisdom. Here, KGM consults with different contributors from various orthodox traditions as part of the community of interpreters. I believe it is increasingly important not to let modern presuppositions bury the old wheel of discovery. Considering CS Lewis's warning about "chronological snobbery," we cannot simply banish the ancient with a preference for the modern, just because we wear modern interpretive lenses. If we want to be critical, be fair critiques of both the past and the present. We should not throw out the old per se.

Why should we read this commentary? Firstly, for those who love the Word of God, it is a no-brainer as far as learning is concerned. There is always something new to discover. The Greek word for disciple literally means "learner," which implies that all believers who are disciples should always adopt a learning attitude. Moving on to a combination of a verse-by-verse and passage-by-passage format, readers can easily refer to the commentary with the Bible in hand. That way, this commentary becomes a guide by the side for us. Secondly, for the reasons mentioned above, this commentary is anchored in the faith traditions of the fathers. That keeps us learning to appreciate the wealth of knowledge that has been given to us by our forefathers. Proverbs 1:5 reminds us that the wise will hear and increase in learning. Why then should we ignore past wisdom and limit ourselves only to modern discoveries? Finally, we read this commentary for a deeper appreciation of Galatians. Like any Bible study, there is always something to learn whenever we go through the Word of God. This commentary presents us with insights that are waiting for us to discover. This itself should be sufficient motivation.

Rating: 4.5 stars out of 5.

KGM raises additional questions at the end to show us that her commentary is not the last word. There are questions that still need answering. However, her observations about covenant election, "infrasession and typology," point us forward to eschatology, that we should not be anxious about things we do not see clearly in the present. After all, if Paul had addressed Jews in Romans, and Gentiles in Galatians, we should be open to how the Holy Spirit uses these epistles to speak to us in the present.

Kathryn Greene-McCreight (PhD, Yale University) is a priest affiliate at Christ Church New Haven, a spiritual director with Berkeley Divinity School at Yale, and the author of several books, including Darkness Is My Only Companion: A Christian Response to Mental Illness and I Am With You: The Archbishop of Canterbury's Lent Book 2016. --This text refers to the hardcover edition. Rating:

conrade
This book has been provided courtesy of Brazos Press via NetGalley without requiring a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.