[Originally posted on my Rabbisaul blog Nov 25 2006]
I’m working on finalizing tomorrow’s sermon on Gal 2.15-16. One of the things that I am arguing is that Paul is drawing upon an Isaianic context within which justification is seen as an eschatological event. This is based upon three Isaianic pillars: justification is in Yahweh (Is 45.25); the Servant will be justified (Is 50.8); and the Servant in turn will justify many (Is 53.11). Thus there is a justification that arises with the advent of the Servant.
Today, it occurs to me further that the biblical relationship between covenant and righteousness confirms this.
N. T. Wright has correctly identified Romans 4.11 as a gloss on Genesis 17.11. Whereas Genesis says that circumcision is a sign of the covenant, Paul says that God gave Abraham the sign of circumcision, epexegetically articulated as “a seal of the righteousness of the faith” Abraham had while still uncircumcised. Which all indicates that the justification-righteousness word complex – despite their disparity in English, these words are cognate in both Hebrew and Greek – is essentially covenantal in nature. (This, of course, is not to deny in any sense that justification is a forensic – legal, courtroom – term; it is only to clarify that the legal cast derives from the covenant. Hence the frequent observation by the commentators that the prophetic writings largely consist of “covenant lawsuits” by Yahweh over against His people, with the prophets acting in His stead somewhat along the lines of prosecuting attorneys.)
Now, the point with regard to the eschatological nature of justification is quite simple, and it assists us in seeing how it can be that there was both justification under the old covenant ; and yet, that the old covenant does not provide the justification which interests Paul. That Pauline justification draws upon the eschatology anticipated by the prophets, an eschatology which was inescapably concerned with the matter of justification.
On the one hand, the Servant in His individual manifestation (I qualify thus, because Isaiah shifts back and forth between individual and corporate senses) is only anticipated under the old covenant; thus the justification involving Him does not arrive until He arrives.
But then, also, the prophets identify the anticipated day as a new covenant (Jer 31.31-34). And if, as is suggested above, justification is covenantal, that would imply, quite by the nature of the case, that a new covenant would entail a new justification. (Indeed, Jer 31.34 itself speaks of a future forgiveness of sins in connection with the new covenant, even though there was clearly an individual forgiveness of sins already available at the time.)
When Paul says, therefore, that justification does not come through works of Torah (Gal 2.16), he is not merely saying that one cannot earn one’s own salvation by good works. That’s true enough; but it simply wasn’t an issue in context. Peter was neither thinking such nor implying such by his actions when he withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentiles, which is the issue in context (Gal 2.12).
Withdrawing from table fellowship is not a matter of merit legalism; it is a covenantal matter. Otherwise, Paul himself would be a merit legalist when he tells the Corinthians not to have table fellowship with those who are called brothers but are impenitent fornicators, covetous, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, or extortioners (1 Cor 5.11). The clear implication of that instruction is that those who practice such things are not covenantally faithful: they are unrighteous.
Thus, Peter’s fault is in no way oriented toward merit legalism; nor is it that he withdraws from table fellowship generally. Such withdrawal was mandated by Paul himself. The issue here is the covenantal basis of the withdrawal.
When Peter withdraws from table fellowship with believing Gentiles, he is identifying them as covenantally unrighteous. But of course, that judgment is not a valid judgment in terms of the new covenant, which has brought about a new justification apart from Torah; and in fact, Peter’s action places him – rather than the Gentiles whom he implicitly, even if unintentionally, judges – as condemned (Gal 2.11; the versions that render this “he was to be blamed” or “he was self-condemned” weaken the force of the original, which simply says that he was condemned). Christ has vindicated a community of Jew and Gentile, and by cutting himself off from that vindicated community, Peter was, in effect, cutting himself off from new covenant vindication itself. (My observation here is not intended to speak to Peter’s eternal standing – “If he died that day, he would have gone to hell!” I am simply pointing out the text’s own connections between condemnation in 2.12 and justification in 2.16, in terms of the argumentative context and biblical background.)
In sum, the expectation of what would happen to the Isaianic Servant (justification, which He in turn would share with others), as well as the expectation of a new covenant (and thus, a new justification), help us find our way in understanding the Pauline doctrine of justification. This doctrine does not countenance merit legalism, but neither is it raised within the context of that particular discussion. Rather, Paul is concerned to defend the definitive act which God has accomplished in vindicating His Servant, Jesus Christ, the Just One, and thus effecting an eschatological vindication for those in Him – a vindication of Jew and Gentile, and thus a vindication apart from Torah, which separated the two as a dividing wall.