A Sermon for the Fourth Sunday in Lent
A Sermon for the Fourth Sunday in Lent
Galatians 4:21-31
by the Rev’d Dr. Matthew Colvin
Our epistle lesson this morning comes from Galatians 4. I know that Pastor Bill preached on it just recently, but I would like to look at it too, from a different angle. It is one of the most controversial chapters in the NT, both for its view of Judaism and for its hermeneutical maneuvers. Paul is concerned for Christians in Galatia. The Judaizers were taunting Gentile Christians with the manifest visible superiority of Judaism: its splendid temple; its priesthood; its Torah; all the society’s esteem and honor. And against this, what did Christians have to show? They were hiding for fear of the Jews; they were subjected to persecution and arrest; they had been kicked out of the synagogue and subjected to the ban, excommunication. Above all, there was the disgrace of worshipping a criminal who had been killed by the most shameful sort of execution, crucifixion by the Romans.
All this was exploited by Paul’s enemies in Galatia, the Judaizers or the circumcision party. Their strategy was to exalt themselves by trying to get the Gentiles to envy them – “They zealously court you, but for no good; yes, they want to exclude you, that you may be zealous for them.” – The verb zeloō means both to be zealous and to be jealous. Paul’s enemies are behaving like spiteful middle school girls — not like the righteous women of this church, but like the ones I knew when I was in school — trying to exclude a hated rival by social shunning, in order to magnify their own status. To stop them and shut them down, Paul needs to do more than just answer their case logically. He also needs to undermine their ethos; he needs to subvert the system of value that makes their case so plausible at first glance. They are counting on Paul’s readers sharing their value system. Paul wants to make sure his readers do not share it. It is a task that he undertakes in many of his letters. In Romans he addresses the Jews as those who
“rest on the law, and make your boast in God, and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law, and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law.”
He is setting forth the Jewish system of value, the grounds of their boasting. And it was a very good grounds for boasting. The longest book in the Bible, Psalm 119, is one continuing paean of praise to the Law, the Torah. It is full of statements like, “I love thy commandments above gold and precious stones” and “The law of thy mouth is dearer unto me than thousands of gold and silver.” But Paul rips this point of boasting away by asking, “Yes, the Law is wonderful — but do you actually obey it?”
In Philippians 3, Paul gathers together all the things that he could have been proud of as a Jew:
“If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;”
That stuff that the Jews think is so valuable? Their circumcision, their membership in one of the two faithful tribes (Benjamin and Judah)? Their zeal, their lawkeeping? It’s all worthless. In fact, it’s so worthless that I threw it all away. I have something of real value that none of that stuff can give you.
In the book of Hebrews, Paul or someone from his circles who thought an awful lot like him has the difficult task of undermining Jewish boasting about the Temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices — a task that might seem impossible, since these things were instituted by God and everybody knew it. The temple was imposing, gleaming with gold. Paul calls it a “tent”, the sort of makeshift, flimsy structure that you go camping in, and you lie down in it, and there’s nothing but a thin layer of cloth between you and the outside, and if it’s too windy, the thing is in danger of collapsing; and anyway, it’s that way because you’re going to take it down and pack it up anyway. That’s what he thinks of your fancy temple. Besides, the real temple is in heaven. Your tent is made by human hands; the only Temple worthy of the name is made by God. The priests’ ministry was observable; they were dressed in robes; everyone could see their work, and that they had been instituted by God. Paul says, “They keep on dying, which is proof that their work isn’t much good. And they have to offer sacrifices for their own sins, not just the people’s.” The sacrifices were there for all to see: they had been commanded by God himself. The blood of the sacrifices flowed continually at the temple, on a daily basis. Paul says, “See how they have to do it over and over again? That’s because it doesn’t really work. They need Jesus. That’s the only sacrifice that works, and that’s why Jesus only needed to be sacrificed once.”
Yes, Paul is a genius at overthrowing his opponents’ strongest arguments. He loves to take their most powerful evidence and use it against them. He is a master of rhetorical jujitsu, throwing his opponents to the mat by using the momentum and force of their own attacks. He is like Elijah in the contest with the prophets of Baal, one man against 450, “And he put the wood in order, cut the bull in pieces, and laid it on the wood, and said, “Fill four waterpots with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice and on the wood.” Then he said, “Do it a second time,” and they did it a second time; and he said, “Do it a third time,” and they did it a third time. So the water ran all around the altar; and he also filled the trench with water.”
In Galatians 4, it is a terribly difficult rhetorical task that Paul faces: his opponents appear to have the Torah, the OT, on their side. It does, after all, command circumcision; it does prohibit the eating of unclean foods; it does tell the stories of Ishmael, Moab, and Ben-Ammi, the ancestors of the rival nations surrounding Israel, all of whom are deprecated as the offspring of incest, slave marriage, or concubinage. These stories account for the origins of the Gentiles around Israel. Israel itself, however, was descended from Isaac, the legitimate son and heir of Abraham. These stories underscore the chosenness of Israel, and the fact that these other nations were not chosen. “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated” was not just a statement about two sons. It was a statement about two nations: the Edomites and Israel. It says that Israel is the covenant people that God loves, and Edom is not.
So it is Paul’s opponents, not Paul, who have the easier case to make here: Jewish people are (most of them) descended from Jacob (Israel) and Gentiles are not. And they might have made this case most plainly from the story of Isaac, Abraham’s son miraculously conceived by the power of God in Abraham’s old age. This is strong rhetorical ground for the circumcision advocates in Galatia. Circumcision is commanded in the Torah for God’s people.
It is breathtakingly audacious for Paul to argue that a proper understanding of the Torah will lead you to the conclusion that circumcision doesn’t matter. Paul calls the Torah a yoke of bondage. I’m not sure we appreciate how bold a move this is. The exodus was Israel’s independence day. It’s when they came out of slavery in Egypt and became a free nation. Paul says that the circumcizers advocating Torah-obedience in Galatia are like those who wanted to go back to Egypt. It would be like an American saying that the Declaration of Independence is the document in American history that made everyone slaves. But that is what Paul says about the Torah, given on Mount Sinai: that covenant has led to the present state of affairs: Jerusalem that now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Now, we know from elsewhere in Paul’s letters, especially Romans, that he considered the Law a good gift of God and the reason why the Law was now leading to slavery was because Israel was using it wrongly, not because the Law was bad. The slavery results from Israel’s sinfulness, not something wrong with the Law. But here, he doesn’t go into that, because he is focused not on the Law as it was given by God, but on the Law as it was used rhetorically by his opponents. You have heard the expression, “He is wrapping himself in the flag”? That is what the Judaizers in Galatia are doing with the Torah: using it as a uniform to distinguish true, Jewish Christians from second-rate, Gentile Christians. And Paul says: You think that you look cool with your bling; but it’s really chains to keep you enslaved.
Above all, Paul takes the bull by the horns and uses an audacious maneuver to deal with the Judaizers’ most powerful weapon: the taunt of illegitimacy. That is the point of the Ishmael story as used by Jews: the Ishmaelites, the Arabs, are illegitimate offspring of Abraham, just as the Moabites and Ammonites were stigmatized as the offspring of Lot’s daughters after the destruction of Sodom. Only Jews were the children of Isaac; they had been called into existence by the power of YHWH himself. They were not the product of an ill-conceived attempt at surrogate pregnancy, and with a slave wife.
Be aware that the Judaizers have centuries and centuries of social and legal precedent for their view. That line that Paul quotes from Sarah — “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman” — that was a line that Paul’s opponents loved to quote. When Sarah said it to Abraham, she wasn’t just being mean. The lawcodes of Ur-Nammu and Lipit-Ishtar, from around the same time as Abraham, contained rules about exactly this sort of situation, and they are formulated with exactly the same sort of phrasing:
“If a man has a wife a free woman who has born children to him, and he takes a slave wife and she also bears children to him, the children of the slave wife shall not share in the inheritance with the children of the free wife.”
Sarah is saying, “Husband, you know the law from when we lived in Ur. This is what we have to do.”
And the heretics in Galatia were taking up this two-thousand year tradition of legal and social stigma against children of slavery, and applying it to Gentile Christians. It’s a powerful tool of shaming and social marginalization, and it is based on a very foundational text of the covenant: the story of the birth of Isaac. Both the Judaizers and their Galatian Gentile victims believed this text was the word of God. Both believed that the Jews were descendants of Isaac. Paul knows all this. He has chosen to fight them on their strongest ground; he gives them home field advantage. He pours water so that it fills up the trench. And then he incinerates their whole argument like Elijah.
The stigma of illegitimacy? He turns it back on the Judaizers. They are the bastards now, the “children of the flesh”; they are “in bondage” with their slave-mother. The Gentile Galatian Christians? They are “children of the promise.” And just as it was back then, the child of the slave woman is persecuting the child of the promise. The two sons are marked not by their circumcised or uncircumcised status but by the slave/free polarity that distinguishes their mothers.
Paul has to reach a little bit here. The LXX Greek translation that Paul used here doesn’t actually say, “persecuting”. What the LXX says is that Sarah “saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian who had been born to Abraham playing with her son Isaac (paizonta meta Isaac tou huiou autes).” That’s the most straightforward way to take it. But the word “playing” can also mean “mocking”. And that’s probably how Paul took it. And then he magnifies it into the sibling rivalry from hell by glossing “mocking” as “persecuting”. Where did he get this from? It is transferred from the situation between the Judaizers and the Gentile Christians in Galatia.
By casting the rivalry as a conflict between the flesh and the promise, Paul undercuts the Judaizers’ use of the Torah. That is why he says, “These are two covenants” — the boldest piece of clever interpretation in the Bible. It is all part of his rhetorical strategy concerning the Torah that he has laid in the previous chapter, Galatians 3. The two covenants are NOT the Old and the New. They are the Torah covenant and the covenant with Abraham (which turns out to find its fulfillment in Christ). And the covenant with Abraham is more original, more foundational, more important, more primary. The law was added 430 years later. The Torah was a stop-gap measure to keep things under control until the fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham. And for Paul, Gentile Christians are that fulfillment: “in you, all the nations — the ethnê — shall be blessed.”
This aligns the Gentile Christians with the whole purpose of the Covenant with Abraham, and means that Paul can cast them as the true children of the promise. They are citizens of the only Jerusalem that counts, the “Jerusalem above”. And by citing the line of Sarah, “cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman”, Paul makes clear what the stakes are here: the Judaizers and those who trust in the Torah to be their badge of membership in the covenant are not merely mistaken. They are Ishmaels and they will not inherit. They will be cast out. The Gentile Christians — and faithful Jewish Christians who did not pressure them to get circumcized — will be counted as true members of the covenant with Abraham, and the Judaizing circumcision-pushers will not. Who are the bastards now?
Paul revels in what God has done. It is perfectly in accordance with his way of working: “He catches the wise in their own craftiness, and the counsel of the cunning is brought to a quick end.” (Job 5). The Judaizers have fallen into the pit that they have dug: their taunts of illegitimacy rebound on their own heads; the glory of the title of “true children of Abraham” is wrapped around the Gentile believers whom they had stigmatized. Paul’s jujitsu victory is complete and total, because it is the victory of Christ, who led captivity captive and triumphed by being crucified.
In the end, Paul’s fierce warfare over the Galatians has to do with vindicating the honor of Christ, with proving that He has really accomplished all that Paul says he has; with showing that the covenant with Abraham is truly fulfilled in Jesus, because he is the yes and amen. To go back to the Torah is to turn the clock back and engage in historical reenactment; to live a life of live-action-role-playing instead of reality. It is a costly and foolish attempt to gain privilege and honor by denying the completeness and finality of Jesus’ work, and attempting to supplement it with another identity in terms of the Torah.
The true Exodus is via Christ, not via the Torah. That is part of the meaning of our gospel lesson this morning from John 6. Here the true bread from heaven, Jesus, works a miraculous feeding like the manna of old. But he does it not in order to cause the crowd to envy his disciples; he has no desire for his followers to act like the Judaizers, zealous courting others to provoke them envy. No, his disciples are to be the means by which the bread of life is given to the multitudes — and the two small fish, symbol of Gentiles and of fishing for men, of the fulfillment of Jeremiah 16:16: “Behold, I am sending for many fishers, declares the Lord, and they shall catch them.” In the end, the nations are to be blessed through the disobedience of Israel. Our time is short, so I will not try to prove this exhaustively, but I want you to see the pattern: Joseph’s brothers disobey and sell him into slavery, so that he is carried off to a Gentile land, Egypt, and becomes assimilated to Egyptian ways. But God works it all out so that Joseph’s imprisonment in an Egyptian prison works out for the salvation of Joseph’s brothers and all Egypt, “to save many alive.” When Jesus touches dead bodies, a woman with a 12 year flow of bleeding that made her unclean, or a leper, what happens? The usual laws of uncleanness work backward: rather than becoming unclean, Jesus makes these people clean. That is the way God has designed the exile of Israel to work: rather than the exiled members of Israel becoming lost and destroyed, they have mingled with the nations and thereby brought it about that in order to keep His promises to Israel, God will save the Gentiles as well. As a result, “In Abraham’s seed, all the nations shall be blessed.” Isn’t it funny how Satan’s schemes always backfire? He is truly the Wile E. Coyote of the Bible.
He will have his church be Israel for the sake of the world; thus we are to be true heirs of Abraham, fulfilling the purpose for which He was called.
Amen.