betz and bruce

7/31/2019 Betz and Bruce

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/betz-and-bruce 1/16

WTJ 45 (1983) 371-85

REVIEW ARTICLE

BETZ AND BRUCE ON GALATIANS*

MOISÉS SILVA

Paul's short letter to the churches in Galatia has had remarkableinfluence throughout the history of the Christian church — one needonly think of Luther in this regard. The fascination that this epistlecontinues to hold may be gauged from the large number and greatvariety of popular expositions that seem to appear without interruption.1 Moreover, the amount of research that modern scholarship hasdevoted to these six chapters seems completely out of proportion to

the size of the epistle.The interpretation of the Greek text of Galatians during the past

century has been dominated by the imposing presence of two commentaries. One of these, authored by J. B. Lightfoot, was first publishedin 1865. Strikingly lucid, this work was characterized by a deceptiveeconomy of language (only 236 pp.) that concealed the author's massiveerudition. The other commentary was anything but succinct: ErnestDeWitt Burton's 600-page work, published in 1921, became a showpiece

•Hans Dieter Betz, Gdatians: A Commentary on Paul*s Letter to the

Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. xxx, 352.$27.95). F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the

Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1982. xx, 305. $15.95). This article is a revision of alecture delivered at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, underthe auspices of the Student Association.

*To mention only two recent works of very different character: thewell-known theologian Gerhard Ebeling, partly as a result of his study of

Luther, has produced a substantive exposition, Die Wahrheit des Evangeliums. Eine Lesehilfe zum Galaterbrief (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981) ; George



372 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

for the International Critical Commentary series. Burton's detailedgrammatical explanations and his extensive lexical notes discouraged

even the most ambitious from attempting a commentary on the Greektext of Galatians for over half a century.

But now, within three years, two major works have appeared: oneby Hans Dieter Betz, who teaches at the University of Chicago DivinitySchool, and the other by F. F. Bruce, who only a few years ago retiredfrom the Rylands Chair at the University of Manchester. We are todayexceedingly fortunate to be able to enjoy these works on the Greektext of Galatians, not only because they are both up-to-date and highly

competent, but because, in spite of some inevitable overlap, they dealwith the material from very different perspectives. Indeed, it wouldbe difficult to think of two prominent figures in contemporary biblicalscholarship more different from each other than Bruce and Betz are.These two commentaries are, in effect, a study in contrasts.

To be sure, much of the difference is to be attributed to the natureand purpose of the series for which these commentaries were written.Betz writes for Hermeneia, a project that up to this point had onlyincluded (except for the OT vols.) translations of the famous Meyer

series — commentaries addressed to the scholarly world and characterized by detailed interaction with current and technical literature. Incontrast, the New International Greek Testament Commentary is specifically designed for the use of students "who want something lesstechnical than a full-scale critical commentary" (from the foreword).But even after making allowance for that distinction, it would be foolhardy to deny that these commentaries reflect the stereotypical contrastbetween the Anglo-Saxon style and the Teutonic Geist. Bruce personifies

the best in those qualities — politeness, moderation, absence of parochialism — that most of us, rightly or wrongly, have come to associatewith British scholarship. And Betz, though he writes in virtually flawless English, treats us to a thoroughness and scholarly depth thatsurely arise from his German culture and academic training.2

Because commentaries demand of their authors that they express judgments at every turn, no reviewer can avoid noticing many statements that either raise questions in his mind or stimulate his adrenalglands. Rather than listing areas of disagreement, therefore, I propose

2 It is indeed ironic that Fortress Press in publicizing this commentary



BETZ AND BRUCE ON GALATIANS 373

to compare and contrast these two works in such a way as to focusour attention on principles of interpretation and method of exposition.Though it would be difficult and unwise to avoid dealing with particularexegetical decisions — after all, these illustrate the principles beingused — my primary interest is the assessment of these commentaries

as wholes, with a view to helping the reader evaluate accurately thesubstance of the authors' specific comments as he or she finds occasionto refer to them.

1. Format

On the assumption that form should not — indeed, cannot — bedivorced from content, we should recognize that commentary formatshave a significant effect on the exposition. In subtle ways, therefore,the user of a commentary, in his attempt to understand Paul via thecommentator, may end up the victim of a publisher's decision.

Those already acquainted with the Hermeneia series are aware of theinnovative physical appearance and typesetting of these volumes. It isalways a delight to see such care expended on a biblical commentary.3

One difficulty arises from the encyclopedic character of Betz's work.His innumerable bibliographical references and quotations from ancientsources have to be put somewhere, and in the Hermeneia series thebottom of the page is the place for them. Now those readers who, likethe present reviewer, are afflicted by a peculiar moral scruple that regards as iniquitous the bypassing of numerical superscripts, will findBetz's work a nightmare. Here is a typical sentence (p. 174) :

It is one of the principal doctrines of Judaism101 that God gave102 the

Torah103 for the purpose of providing a way for Israel into eternallife.1«*

The record possibly goes to a long sentence on p. 262, graced as it iswith superscripts 81 to 86. Surely this is the foot-and-note diseasegone mad.4 Many of these notes (particularly those consisting only of biblical references) could have been incorporated into the text, asBruce often does; at times two or three notes could have been combined into one. It must be admitted, however, that for someone who

3 Occasionally the Hebrew letters are not aligned properly, as the taw(t i ) 145 62 (I thi t ti th h i t h h b




is able to ignore all those little numbers, Betz's text is remarkablyclean and readable»

Of greater moment is the verse-by-verse feature that characterizesboth of these commentaries. The convenience afforded by this methodguarantees its continuing existence, but in effect it is no more appropriatefor the accurate exposition of Paul's thought than a bar-by-bar analysisis adequate for the evaluation of a Brahms symphony.5 Bruce himself,in his popular commentary on Romans, has shown one way to dealwith Paul's writings that does greater justice to the coherence of wholeparagraphs.6 At any rate, the user of the typical commentary must

develop some sensitivity to the fact that any writing is almost inevitablydistorted if one approaches it in atomistic fashion. Paradoxically, themore complicated the passage — so that it appears especially to requirea detail-by-detail treatment — the more it suffers from such an approach. Note especially either Betz's or Bruce's discussion of Gal 2:17-20.

A few other features call for comment. Both authors provide theirown translation of Galatians. Betz accompanies his with selectedalternate renderings culled from the standard modern versions, whereas

Bruce includes textual notes after each section is translated. Betzdivides his comments into two sections: one is the analysis, whichconsists primarily of literary remarks, and the other is the interpretation. Both works provide indexes, but particularly helpful is the fullsubject index in Bruce's commentary.

2. Textual Criticism

Jn their text-critical comments one finds little contrast between thesetwo commentaries — they are both disappointing, as is virtually everycontemporary expositor. I do not mean that their judgment is poor;

5 It can be said in all seriousness that a careful reading of a few of Donald F. Tovey's Essays in Musical Analysis (6 vols.; Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1935-59) might prove of great help to any Pauline expositor.

6The Epistle of Faul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary

(Tyndale NT Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963). This work

provides verse-by-verse comments only after the respective sections havebeen expounded as wholes. Similarly, some volumes in the Anchor Bibleseries make excellent use of the division between Notes and Comments




it is simply that (with a couple of exceptions in Bruce's work) theydo not seek to advance the discussion but rely on the text common

today. It used to be in days gone by that someone writing a commentary on the Greek text of the NT was assumed to be an editor of that text. Lightfoot, for example, gives us his Greek text of Galatiansat the top of the page (Dean Alford and others did the same for thewhole NT). While that approach became less necessary after the workof Westcott and Hort, we find that Burton pays a great deal of attention to textual matters and offers his considered opinion based on anevident familiarity with the MSS themselves. But today NT scholars

have largely relinquished their responsibility in this area. Part of theblame goes to the availability of highly regarded editions, most recentlythe United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, a most serviceableinstrument but one that may be bringing with it a measure of scholarlyapathy.

Bruce, it will be recalled, was involved in the production of Souter's1947 edition of the Greek NT. As one might expect, he is comfortablehandling the textual evidence, which he summarizes in a selective apparatus. He includes more variants than the UBS text does, but not

as many as Nestle-Aland. The number of witnesses mentioned foreach variant is roughly comparable to that in Nestle-Aland (that is,fewer than in UBS). Clearly, much thought and care has gone into producing this material. Unfortunately, Bruce devotes no space in theintroduction to matters of text, thus we have no way of determininghis criteria for selecting variants and witnesses. Whatever value theremay be in his data will be lost on most users of the commentary. Itshould be pointed out, however, that on a few instances Bruce gives

considerable attention to text-critical problems; for example, the interesting question regarding the omission of hois onde in 2:5 receiveswell over a page of informative discussion.

Betz devotes a brief section to the text of Galatians in his introduction (pp. 12-14), but this consists merely of lists that are otherwiseavailable. What the reader needs is a clear overview of the textual history of the epistle, where significant patterns would show up; withoutsome such picture, both commentator and reader are left to evaluatingvariants and their witnesses in isolation from each other — one more

example of atomistic interpretation. As for Betz's text-critical comments, these are consistently relegated to a couple of lines in the foot




Commentary."7 The flaw, of course, is that when Metzger and the othermembers of the UBS committee have to make textual decisions, they

consult commentaries. But a commentator's exegetical judgment oncompeting variants is often of little value unless that judgment hasbeen formed by his familiarity with the textual tradition (for whichsome examination of the MSS themselves is indispensable). The presentestrangement between the fields of textual criticism and exegesis is notvery encouraging, and students must learn to take text-critical comments in the commentaries with a good dose of salt.

3. Language

Here too we do not find much of a contrast between the two works,but in this case the reason is that both are very good. Bruce with hisbackground in classics and Betz with his expertise in Hellenistic Greekliterature provide excellent models for the responsible handling of Greek. It is all the more interesting to note an absence of philologicalacrobatics. Any reader hoping to find some fancy footwork on theaorist tense will be greatly disappointed. One is tempted to concludethat an inverse relation exists between a genuine knowledge of theGreek language and the use of subtle grammatical distinctions as abasis for exegetical decisions.

In comparison with Lightfoot and Burton, however, it should benoted that Betz and Bruce often fail to lay out the interpreter's optionswhen the syntax is ambiguous, as in 2:4 and 4:17-18. (To put it dif

ferently, the two older works have not been made obsolete by the twonewer ones.) On 3:11, strangely, neither Betz nor Bruce makes thereader aware of the important controversy between the translations

"the righteous shall live by faith" (preferred by Betz) and "it is theone who is righteous that will live" (preferred by Bruce) ; the studentsurely needs some clear arguments here, such as both authors persuasively give in support of the objective genitive at 2:16, anotherdebated syntactical crux. As mentioned earlier, both authors give lessthan satisfactory treatments of 2:17-20.8

7 How much thought Betz has given to some of the textual variations maybe gathered from his comment on Christou (Gal 1:6): "A number of good

witnesses do not have it . . . , but others do have it . . . " (p. 48 n. 55).Also symptomatic of the contemporary situation is the fact that, as far asI am aware no reviewer of Betz's commentary has expressed dissatisfaction




In general, the student of Greek will of course receive more helpfrom Bruce, who incidentally gives brief discussions of semantic fields

and other valuable linguistic material; Betz usually assumes that thereader has figured out the syntactical problems on his own.

4. Literary Structure

The differences between the two scholars become especially clearunder the present category. Bruce has never shown much interest inthe formalities of structural analysis. This does not mean he is in

sensitive to the importance of literary context ; his good exegetical senseconsistently alerts him to the need for interpreting details as links ina developing argument. But he never really makes the attempt toformalize those instincts. As a result, his outlines are not always helpful in revealing the structure of the argument.

With Betz it is quite the opposite. In fact, perhaps the single mostimportant contribution of his commentary lies precisely in this area.On the basis of extensive research into the methods of rhetoric inantiquity, Betz has concluded that Galatians belongs clearly to the

genre of the "apologetic letter." His resulting outline consists primarilyof a narratio or narrative, a propositio (transitional statement), a pro-

batio (the most decisive section, where the proofs are presented), andan exhortatio; these are in turn divided into numerous subheadings.My initial reaction9 was one of considerable skepticism, since Galatiansbears all the marks of an urgent, passionate letter. Paul, who in anycase had no patience with artificial eloquence (e.g. Col 2:4), was leastlikely in these circumstances to pull out his rhetoric textbooks and

carefully compose a literary masterpiece (one senses this incongruityespecially in Betz's analysis of 1:6-7, on pp. 44f.).

As one works through the commentary, however, it is difficult toavoid the force of the evidence. In contrast to other attempts at innovative outlines,10 Betz's ideas as a rule confirm the intuitions of our

21," TQ 163 (1983) 15-39. It is, I think, remarkable how very clear andhelpful are J. Gresham Machen's comments on the syntax and argumentof this passage (Notes on Galatians [ed. John H. Skilton; Philadelphia:Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972]), particularly in view of the fact thatthis material was written originally for a column in a church paper thatcould not assume any knowledge of Greek on the part of the reader.




finest scholars. Moreover, some of the parallels between Paul's arguments and Quintilian's advice are simply too obvious to be disregarded.

To be sure, some reservations about this approach remain. Betz neverieally addresses the question whether Paul actually knew the rhetoricaltextbooks; and if he did, whether he followed their advice deliberatelyor unconsciously (granted that no sharp distinction holds between thesetwo modes). Second, at a number of important points Paul seems togo his own way. For example, the hortatory section of the epistle seemsan anomaly — even Quintilian does not deal with parénesis (p. 254n. 2). And in chaps. 3 and 4 of Galatians, where the analysis is de

scribed as "extremely difficult," we are offered the explanation thatPaul was very successful "in disguising his argumentative strategy"(p. 129) ! Third, Betz himself acknowledges (pp. 54f.) that Paul regarded the "art of persuasion" as "rather negative and unfitting" because of its deceptive qualities; yet Betz never attempts to reconcilethat fact with Paul's apparent use of the method. In spite of thesereservations, however, I have found the approach illuminating andworthy of further attention.

5. Historical Setting

As one would expect, an important feature distinguishing thesecommentaries is the relative value they place on the historicity of Acts. Bruce, building on the impressive work of William Ramsay at theturn of the century, has been a leading spokesman for the view thatActs is a reliable historical document. It would be a mistake to thinkthat this view is merely a reflection of Bruce's theological conservatism.

Bruce, one must remember, was trained as a classicist, and the firstpart of his teaching career involved the study of Thucydides and otherancient authors. His transition to biblical studies must be understoodas an attempt to examine the NT documents according to the methodshe had learned to use when studying classical literature.11 This ap-

Epistle (London: St. Paul, 1969), which proves progressively unsatisfactorythe more one uses its suggestions regarding chiastic structures.

11 Cf. Bruce's SNTS Presidential Address, "The New Testament and

Classical Studies," NTS 22 (1975-76) 229-42, esp. pp. 235-36. Bruce'sfirst major work was The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (London: Tyndale 1941) Some biblical students




proach, rather than some theological commitment, is primarily responsi

ble for Bruce's dependence on Acts as a source for reconstructing thehistorical background of Galatians.In contrast to all this, Betz has little use for Acts. True, at one

point he expresses himself rather positively (pp. 8If.) :

The author of Acts is a historical writer, interested in historical detail, buthe writes from a later perspective, and his information is limited. He addshis tendencies to whatever tendencies may have already been contained inhis source material. None of these considerations, however, necessarilyrenders the data unreliable.

This is a sober assessment that raises our expectations, but only for amoment. Two pages later we read: "It should be clear that the twovisits of which we read in Galatians cannot be harmonized with Acts"(p. 84; similarly, p. 63 on Paul's conversion; p. 10 more generally).On p. 4 he had warned us that "the historical reliability of the itineraries in Acts" is only a "hypothesis" — an exceedingly curious remark,unless he is prepared to apply the same description to any material forwhich we have only one historical source (in which case the remark

is a truism). One might be better disposed toward the author if hehad interacted with opposing viewpoints; instead, he basically ignoresthe massive evidence that has been marshalled in support of Acts. Already in 1970 Bruce had commented: "It is disquieting to see howsuperficially the North Galatian hypothesis is defended by many of its champions nowadays."12 He might as well have been describingBetz's very weak historical treatment in the introduction to the commentary.

Bruce's statement, incidentally, may suggest to some readers that a

low estimate of Acts goes hand-in-hand with the North Galatian hypothesis (which implies a date for the letter during Paul's third missionary journey), while a conservative view of Acts favors the SouthGalatian destination (with the letter usually dated right after the first

journey and before the council recorded in Acts 15, A.D. 49). Brucehimself argues correctly that such a correlation "is neither necessarynor deliberate" (p. 17). We need only remember J. B. Lightfoot andJ. Gresham Machen to confirm Bruce's judgment. Unfortunately, the

South Galatian theory is often tied to an early date for Galatians, whichmany evangelicals feel is necessary in order to avoid a contradiction




between Acts 15 and Gal 2:1-10. With considerable overstatement, one

conservative scholar has commented thatPaul's silence in Galatians regarding the decision of the Jerusalem Councilforces the irreconcilable dilemma of declaring that either (1) the Actsaccount of the Council and its decision in Acts 15 is pure fabrication, or(2) the letter to the Galatians was written prior to the Council.13

But the similarities between Acts 15 and Gal 2:1-10 are so fundamental, that dating Galatians prior to the Jerusalem Council requiresus to use the least satisfactory method of harmonization: the positingof two distinct events when the prima facie reading of two passagessuggests that they are treating the same event.14 There are indeedsome difficult problems in equating Acts 15 with Gal 2:1-10, but datingGalatians prior to the events described in Acts 15 is too easy a solution.Though not very popular, the view that combines a South Galatiandestination with a dating of the letter during Paul's Ephesian ministryappears most faithful to the evidence.

13 Richard Longenecker, The Ministry and Message of Paul (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1971) 48; also in The Zcndervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (5 vols.; ed. M. C. Tenney and S. Barabas; Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1975) 4.637. Cf. also Bruce himself (Commentary on the Book of Acts [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954] 299): "If Gal. 2:1-10and Acts 15:6-29 purported to relate one and the same set of events, thenone at least of the two accounts could not be acquitted of misrepresentingthe facts." In contrast, and interestingly, Bruce does not even consider thisproblem as he argues for an early date in his commentary on Galatians (pp.43-56).

14 As Lightfoot (The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians [London:

Macmillan, 1890] 123-24) noted, both passages agree on (a) geographicalsetting, (b) relative chronology, (c) persons involved, (d) subject of dispute, (e) character of the conference, (f) general result. He then concludeswith studied understatement: "A combination of circumstances so strikingis not likely to have occurred twice within a few years." (Cf. also Burton,

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians [ICC ;

Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921] xliv.) Lightfoot wisely refrains from saying "impossible" — only "not likely," just as it is not likely that, say,Jesus had two encounters with rich young rulers. Ronald Yam-Kwan Fung,in his Ph.D. thesis under F. F. Bruce ("The Relationship Between Righteousness and Faith in the Thought of Paul, as Expressed in the Letters to theGalatians and the Romans" [2 vols.; University of Manchester, 1975]1.577-82) has sought to refute Lightfoot's argument; it is a valiant effort,




6. Jewish Background

Professor Betz has devoted much of his scholarly effort to masteringHellenistic literature as a means of shedding light on the NT. 15 Theindex in back of his commentary lists over 200 separate references toGreek and Latin authors; in addition, he has some 30 references to theworks of Philo. One is baffled to notice, however, that references toRabbinic literature come to only about two dozen (and more than half of these are to Pirke 'Abot). Is it really likely that Paul the Phariseereflects his Hellenistic background ten times more clearly than hisJewish background? That is probably an unfair way of putting it; and

in any case one should allow each scholar to capitalize on his or herinterests and expertise. Users of the commentary, however, should beaware of a potential distortion of the material resulting from such heavydependence on only one side of Paul's background.16

Bruce is certainly much more balanced (and therefore, someone islikely to suggest, less exciting) in his presentation. Moreover, his expertise in Qumran and related areas makes him sensitive to Paul'sPalestinian background. Still, one can argue that even Bruce has not

done justice to the exegetical significance of this factor. I am not nowconcerned primarily with the failure of both commentators to makebetter use of current Jewish scholarship.17 Indeed, the problem is not

that we need more bibliographic references or more specific parallels.

15 His first major publication was Lukian von Samosata und das NeueTestament (TU 76; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961). Among other importantworks note Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature(SCHNT 4; Leiden: BriU, 1978).

16 This weakness in Betz's work has been noted by most reviewers, particularly by W. D. Davies in Religious Studies Review 7 (1981) 310-18.However, since no commentary can be expected to cover all the basesadequately, it is perfectly legitimate, and even necessary, to have specializedworks of this sort. One must assume that every commentary user recognizesthe danger of relying on only one perspective and therefore the need tocheck more than one work.

17 Neither Betz nor Bruce, as far as I can tell, availed himself of themagisterial synthesis by Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and

Beliefs (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975; 2nd ed. 1979). Since the author

of Galatians was a Jew — indeed a rabbi — and since this letter was writtento address a basically Jewish problem, one is inclined to suggest that




What is missing is rather a general interpretive framework, a pervasive

approach that coincides with the very milieu that gave rise to the

epistle in the first place.

Since the author o£ this review article can hardly pass for an expert

in halakic studies, one simple illustration will have to do. The all-

important chap. 3 of Galatians appears at first blush to be a general»

inclusive statement of Paul's understanding of the nature and purpose

of the Mosaic law. All of us, I fear, tend to isolate this passage from

its historical (i.e. first-century Jewish) setting. Paul, however, was in

the midst of a struggle for the truth of the gospel, a struggle that in

volved a very specific group of people with very specific views aboutthe law. Those views were, mutatis mutandis, Paul's own views before

he came to a knowledge of the truth. And in this very epistle (1:14)

Paul describes those Views as "the ancestral traditions" (tön patrikön

paradpseôn). Surely no Jew could hear that phrase without interpreting

it as a reference to the torah sebe'al peh, the Oral Law — those teach

ings of men that, according to Jesus, nullified the word of God

(Mark 7:8).

Now we would be moving to the opposite extreme if we were to

interpret notyos a in Galatians 3 as a reference, not to the Mosaic law,

but to firsl-century halakah.18

But is it really plausible that Paul, in

the midst of a controversy with Judaizers, could speak of the law

in isolation from the way that law was normally understood in the

synagogue? The proper approach to this question has been formulated

most clearly by Ridderbos, who argues that again and again Paul takes

his starting point; from the law

a? it functioned in the synagogue's doctrine of redemption opposed by

him, . . . the law as he saw it before him in the life of the Jews, the lawas he himself had also lived from it (Phil. 3:6), that is, the law before

Christ and the law without Christ.19

tannaitic documents seldom fails to illuminate the NT text. See in the

present issue o£ this journal Daniel Hayden King, "Paul and the Tannaim:

A Study in Galatians.υ

1 8Similarly, it would be too simple to say that nomos refers to "legalistic

misunderstandings" (Daniel P* Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Con-

Hnuum? [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980] 98). For a most valuable dis-cussion of this whole issue see Douglas J. Moo, "'Law,' *Works of theLaw/ and Legalism in Paul " WTJ 45 (1983) 73 100




A greater concern for this aspect of the discussion would naturally haveaffected Betz and Bruce in some of their theological formulations, atopic to which we now turn.

7. Theology and Exegesis

Bruce tells us in an introductory comment: "Romans must not bemade the standard for interpreting Galatians: Galatians must bë readand understood in its own right" (p. 2). An almost identical concernis expressed by Betz in his preface: "The attempt to harmonize Gala

tians with other Pauline letters has been resisted, and so has the attemptto interpret Galatians by interpreting 'Paul's theology' into it" (pp. xv-xvi). This is becoming a common type of remark nowadays,20 and itreflects a valid and important hermeneutical concern: we must resistreducing all the data in Paul's letters to their lowest common denominator; we must be sensitive to the distinctive features of each epistle.

As usually expressed, however, this viewpoint is unhelpful, becausein effect it entails the abandonment of the principle of contextual interpretation. My criticism may seem strange, but only because we areused to operating with an unjustifiably narrow conception of context;in fact, what Paul says in Romans is part — and a crucially importantpart — of the context of Galatians.21 And just as there is nothing w*ongwith attempting to "harmonize," say, Gal 3:3 with w 4 and S — thatis the fundamental basis of interpretation — so there is nothing wrongin attempting to harmonize Galatians with Romans.

Fortunately, fine exegetical sense prevents our commentators fromadhering consistently to their stated rule. Bruce, for example, pays

considerable attention to comparing Gal 5:17 with Rom 7:7-25, whileBetz makes good use of Rom 4 in explicating Gai 3:6. But mote isneeded. Greater sensitivity to Paul's theology in general would sutelyhave kept Betz from attributing to Paul the impossible dichotomy that"the Torah was not given to be faithfully obeyed as covenant, but forthe purpose of breaking it and generating sin" (p. 145)* Both commentators, in their attempt to be faithful to Paul's negative character*.

20 Cf. John W. Drane, Paul: Libertine or Legalist? A Study m the the ology of the Major Epistles (London: S.P.C.K., 1975) ?ff., and my reviewin WTJ 40 (1977-78) 176-80.

2 1




ization of the law, fail to explain to us what is the conceptual differencebetween (a) stating "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalthave no other gods before me" — with the related curse in Deut 27:26— and (b) listing fornication and idolatry as works of the flesh, thepractice of which prevents people from inheriting the kingdom of God(Gal 5:19-21).22

Furthermore, it can be argued that the broader concerns of systematic theology provide an additional level of context that must notbe ignored by the exegete. At this point, no doubt, I am abandonedby the few who may have followed me thus far. After all, it is normally

assumed that the best preparation for exegesis is the good fortune neverto have taken a course in dogmatics. Given the confines of this review,I must be satisfied with merely registering my dissent. Someone, however, needs to write an essay on "Systematic Theology as the Presupposition for Responsible Exegesis."23

* * * *

Many pastors and students of the NT, intimidated by the scholarlyapparatus (as well as the price) of Betz's commentary, will quickly opt

for Bruce as their main resource in the exegesis of Galatians. Mostcertainly, a large proportion of Bruce's material will prove to havedirect value for the pastor. But why choose one over the other? Itwould be a great shame if concern for relevance — sometimes a disguise for anti-intellectualism — were to keep students of Paul fromenjoying the rich and stimulating education that Betz offers in his com-

22 To his credit, Betz is very conscious of the problem raised by Gal5:14ff. (see especially p. 274). Moreover, he is correct when he describesthe fruit of the Spirit as being "in fact the fulfillment of the Torah" (p.275; in contrast, Bruce [p. 255] states that when the fruit of the Spiritis "in view we are in a sphere with which law has nothing to do"). Butwhen Betz suggests that Paul "could do well without" the law "as faras his own theology is concerned," and that the apostle integrates the concept of Torah into his teaching only "because the Galatians are so pre

occupied with" it (p. 275), an unbearable inconsistency is injected intoPaul's thinking. Betz's frank effort to face the issue directly, however,is a most refreshing aspect of his commentary




mentary. And, as a colleague has remarked in a different connection,

consider how much more expensive than the book is tuition at theUniversity of Chicago Divinity School.

Westminster Theological SeminaryPhiladelphia

Systematic Theology," in Scripture and Truth (ed. D. A. Carson and JohnD. Woodbridge; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) 65-95, esp. pp. 90-93.



^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American

Theological Library Association.

betz and bruce

Documents