BIG IDEA:
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH PROVES THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO LIVE BY FAITH — SINCE WE HAVE BEEN FREED FROM THE CURSE OF THE LAW
INTRODUCTION:
George Brunk: Clearly the key word in this paragraph is curse. As the antithesis of blessing, curse signals that Paul is presenting the negative side of the positive statement in the preceding paragraph. The teachers undoubtedly saw the Law of Moses as a place of refuge or protection. And although Paul “upholds” the Law (Rom 3:31) and considers it “holy and just and good” (7:12), here he insists that any commitment to “the works of the Law” puts one under a curse rather than under the Law’s protection. The two paragraphs function as point/counterpoint in the argument. The contrast is between faith that leads to blessing, and works of the Law that lead to curse. The first way of being righteous results in the inclusion of all peoples. Although the contrasting result is not stated as such, dependence on the works of the Law results only in the exclusion of everyone who does not fully obey the Law, which is, unfortunately, everyone (3:11a)!
Paul continues to interweave the two themes of true biblical faith and God’s universal gospel for all peoples. The concept of curse permits Paul to explain why works of Law lead to a dead end, yet it also provides the occasion to explain the benefit of Christ’s death on a cross: Christ took the curse of the Law upon himself, releasing those under the curse. God’s act of redemption in Christ has the effect of opening the blessing of Abraham to the Gentiles and of realizing the promise of the Spirit in all believers. Paul’s reference to the Abrahamic blessing and to the Spirit (v. 14) ties together the entire section of 3:1-14.
David deSilva: Paul here drives a wedge between trust and works of the Torah, demonstrating from Scripture the incompatibility of the two paths that the rival teachers urge his converts to combine. He gives initial expression to the idea that the period of living “under law” belongs to the past, as Christ has redeemed people from the curse that the Torah pronounces; the present time is now for walking in the Spirit, the blessing surprisingly identified with the promise. The former topic will continue to be developed in 3:15–25; 4:1–7; the latter topic in 5:5–6, 13–25.
Timothy George: On one level the passage can be analyzed in terms of four major propositions, each of which is confirmed and elucidated by a citation from the OT. Thus
(1) those who rely on observing the law are under a curse. Why so? The Bible says that those who do not continue to do everything written in the book of the law are cursed (Deut 27:26).
(2) No one can be justified by means of the law anyway. Why not? The Scripture declares that the righteous ones live by faith (Hab 2:4).
(3) Law and faith are not mutually compatible ways to God. How can you be so sure? Because the law itself says that those who keep the commandments will live by them (Lev 18:5).
(4) Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law. How did this happen? He became a curse for us by hanging on a tree (Deut 21:23).
Thomas Schreiner: Curse of law removed only in Christ (3:10–14)
A. Those who rely on the law are cursed (3:10–12)
- Because one must obey the law perfectly (3:10)
- Because justification is by faith, not the law (3:11)
- Because the law and faith are incompatible (3:12)
B. Those who rely on the cross of Christ are blessed (3:13–14)
- Because Christ redeemed believers from the law’s curse (3:13)
- Therefore, believers receive Abraham’s blessing (3:14)
Nijay Gupta: To sum up, Paul underscores for the Galatians the futility and absurdity of trying to become right with God through works of the law; the only path for this is faith, now faith in Jesus Christ. This faith is not about beliefs quietly tucked away in one’s head but about a dynamic, trust-filled relationship with Jesus Christ, the kind of trust Abraham put in the God who called him out of his land into an unknown place to receive seemingly impossible promises, a family as numerous as the stars, countless blessings, and life out of death in the form of a child. Performing the law to find righteousness is a cul-de-sac, not a highway. Or, to change the analogy a bit, those who commit themselves to that path are stuck on a dead-end road.
Paul takes it for granted that the law pronounces a curse on God’s people (with no exceptions) when he states that Christ redeemed us from the law’s curse by becoming cursed in exchange (3:13). Implied also is the notion that Christ did not deserve to be cursed. For him to absorb that curse, he needed to be innocent. Thus, 3:13 can be connected back to 2:20, where Paul states that the Son of God gave himself for us out of love.
Richard Longenecker: The second section (vv 10–14) of Paul’s argument from Scripture deals with four important biblical passages—three that evidently the Judaizers had used in support of their message (Deut 27:26; Hab 2:4; Lev 18:5), which Paul reinterprets in rather ad hominem fashion for his converts, and a fourth that appears to have been part of an early Jewish Christian confession (Deut 21:23), which Paul cites as having put an end to questions about legalism. In treating the three passages used by his opponents, Paul sets them out in terms of opposing categories: those having to do with law and curse (Deut 27:26 and Lev 18:5) and another having to do with faith and righteousness (Hab 2:4). Here the radical nature of Paul’s understanding of the relation of faith and law (or, “gospel and law”) comes to the fore, for in dealing with these passages he sharply distinguishes between them—not in what we know as a Marcionite type of distinction, but in seeing that they operate on different levels and for different purposes (so the Antiochian interpreters, contra the Alexandrian interpreters). In presenting the fourth passage of this second section (Deut 21:23), Paul reiterates the important point made at the beginning of his probatio: acceptance of Christ’s death for us puts an end to all legalistic enticements (cf. 3:1). Paul’s theology is a theology of the cross, of the Spirit, of faith, and of being “in Christ.” All these elements reverberate throughout Paul’s probatio, but he begins at v 1 with the cross and in v 13 lays stress on it again.
Ben Witherington: Chart showing narrative flow:
(1) The Group and its Plight– ‘we’ were under the Law’s curse (3:10,13)
- ‘we’ were confined under the Law, our guardian (3:23–24)
- ‘we’ were under Law, slaves of the elementary principles (4:3, 5)
(2) Identification of Christ with the Plight
- he became ‘a curse for us’ (3:13)
- the Faith/Christ ‘came’ (3:23–35)
- he was ‘born under the Law (4:4)
(3) Redemption of the Group
- Christ ‘redeemed us’ (3:13) – ‘now that the Faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian’ (3:25)
- ‘to redeem those under the Law’ (4:5)
(4) Blessings Accruing to All Believers – cf. 3:14; 3:26–29; 4:5b-7.
I. (:10) DEPENDENCE ON THE LAW (FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS BEFORE GOD) CARRIES WITH IT AN INESCAPABLE CURSE
Quote from Deut. 27:26
John MacArthur: A curse is a divine judgment that brings the sentence of condemnation.
A. Inescapability of the Curse
“For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse“
If you choose this route (of trusting in the works of the Law), there is no escape.
David deSilva: [Paul’s emphasis lies] (1) in his conviction that Christ has secured for his dependents something far better able to align human beings with God’s righteousness in the gift of the Holy Spirit and (2) in his conviction that the Torah was instituted for a limited term to play a very limited role in God’s larger economy of making people righteous (3:15–25). The law does not give life, because that is the role of the promise and of the faith that receives what was promised, and the law was a temporary arrangement with a fixed endpoint, whose term expired with the coming of the Christ and the completion of his work on behalf of Jew and gentile. This point is underscored for Paul in his experience of seeing gentiles accepted by God on the basis of their response of trust in Jesus, an acceptance that he deduces from their reception of God’s Holy Spirit. The ongoing value of the boundary-maintaining function of the Torah as pedagogue over Israel was now sharply called into question by the Christ event and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon Jew and gentile alike.
David Platt: He is quoting from Deuteronomy 27:26 to show that the law demands obedience, perfect obedience. Similarly, when Jesus preaches the Sermon on the Mount, recounting various aspects of the Old Testament law, he says, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). The law shows us that we can’t be perfect, because the law exposes our sin. To be clear, the law doesn’t make us sinners but rather reveals the fact that we are already sinners. It uncovers the sinful heart that is in each of us. In Calvin’s words, “The law was given in order to make known transgressions obvious” (Calvin, Epistles of Paul, 61). . .
We need grace, Paul says, because we stand cursed beneath the law. Verse 10 makes this exact point concerning those who rely on the works of the law. The magnitude of this statement should come across to us as if an announcement had just been made that 100 nuclear warheads were headed right for this country (Piper, Christ Redeemed Us). Each of us stands under the curse of the law, the law given by the sovereign judge of the universe.
B. Hopelessness of the Curse
“for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in
the book of the law, to perform them“
The emphasis is on “everyone” and “all” — these are universally applicable principles. God’s standard for righteousness = Perfection = impossible for any man to measure up.
Good intentions will get you nowhere. 90% compliance will get you nowhere.
Ronald Fung: Paul’s meaning in v. 10 is, therefore, that all who hold to legal works are under the curse pronounced by the law itself upon all who do not observe the law completely. The words presuppose that no one does observe the law completely, although Paul does not pursue this line of reasoning, but concentrates on the declaration of the authoritative scripture.
Craig Keener: Whereas Paul’s opponents may have linked law-works with Deuteronomy’s blessings, Paul appeals to the same context for the curses. These curses apply to those under the law (a hermeneutical principle that Paul later invokes in Rom. 3:19) who fail to keep it. . .
Although many scholars doubt that Paul’s argument here presupposes the impossibility of keeping the law, a probably larger number of scholars maintain, I believe correctly, the more traditional view that Paul presupposes here that no one perfectly keeps the law.
Douglas Moo: A rival interpretation has gained considerable support in recent years. According to this view, “those who are out of the works of the law” refers to people “whose identity is derived from works of the Law” (Hays 2000: 258), and the ἐξ would function as it does in 2:12, where τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς (tous ek peritomēs) means “belonging to the group of people who are circumcised” (e.g., Gordon 2009). On this view, the phrase refers to the people of Israel in general; and the Galatians are being warned not to join themselves to Israel by their “works of the law.” Paul then cites Deut. 27:26 not as a principle that functions in a larger argument but as a reminder of historical fact: Israel did, in fact, incur the curse (of exile) because of the people’s failure to remain faithful to God’s covenant. Paul’s point, then, would be to warn his Galatian readers that, if they try to identify with Israel by taking on the distinctive “markers” of Judaism, “the works of the law,” they will themselves fall under the curse that hangs over Israel (see esp. Stanley 1990; J. Scott 1993; N. Wright 1991: 141–48; cf. also Hays 2000: 258; Thielman 1989: 66–69; Braswell 1991: 74–76; Caneday 1989: 192–95; Dumbrell 2000: 23–25, 27–29; and in modified form, Starling 2011: 49–52). This interpretation fits neatly into the more “narratival” reading of Paul’s argument in this part of Galatians that has gained support in recent years. Yet we think there are good reasons for preferring the “traditional” view.
Philip Ryken: The problem with the law, then, is not the law; the problem with the law is our sin. Since we cannot keep the law, the law cannot bless us. All it can do is curse us, placing us under the condemnation of divine wrath.
II. (:11) THE OT SUPPORTS JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH — NOT BY KEEPING THE LAW
Quote from Hab. 2:4
“Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident;
for, ‘The righteous man shall live by faith.'”
George Brunk: Law observance is not the key to the divine-human relationship. Faith is that key—as it always has been!
Philip Ryken: In their original context, Habakkuk’s words condemned the pride of the Babylonians who conquered Jerusalem. The prophet accused them of proud self-confidence. They were “not right in relation to God: instead of trusting in him they held aloof in a spirit of self-sufficiency, trusting in themselves.” But this is not how God wants his people to live. He wants them to live by faith. They are the justified ones, the ones who have been declared righteous by God. Now they must live by faith, as Abraham did. Instead of trusting in themselves, they must trust God. Faith must characterize their relationship with God from beginning to end.
Ronald Fung: Paul’s argument in v. 11 is, then, to this effect: because Scripture says that it is he who is righteous (that is, justified) by faith that will live, it follows that no one is justified by works of the law (irrespective of one’s success or failure in keeping it).
Richard Longenecker: While γάρ at the start of v 10 was explanatory, here δέ is adversative (contra Betz, Galatians, 146). Used in the same sentence with the adverb δῆλον (“clear,” “plain,” “evident”), the antithetical nature of vv 10 and 11 is heightened (so “it is evident, however” or “clearly, however”). By means of the antithesis presented in these two verses, in fact, Paul sets out his biblical evidence in support of what he said in 2:15–16 of the propositio and what he said about his converts’ experience and Abraham in the probatio—i.e., that Scripture in those pivotal passages under dispute associates curse with law and righteousness with faith. And it is this dichotomous categorization of the biblical texts that Paul wants to highlight against the Judaizers’ claims. . .
In v 11 Paul sets up a sharp antithesis to v 10: righteousness is to be associated with faith alone; curse is the result of trying to observe the law in order to gain righteousness.
John MacArthur: The passage from Deuteronomy proves justification cannot be by the Law, and the passage from Habakkuk proves it must be by faith. The ways of law and faith are mutually exclusive. To live by law is to live by self-effort and leads inevitably to failure, condemnation, and death. To live by faith is to respond to God’s grace and leads to justification and eternal life.
Douglas Moo: If we are right about the connection of the words and phrases in Paul’s quotation, then his application of the Habakkuk text exhibits that “deepening” of the original sense that is a hallmark of the NT use of the OT (see Moo 1986). In both Habakkuk and Paul, “righteous” (δίκαιος) refers to the person who is in good standing with God, but in Paul the word takes on the specific sense of the forensic status of “being justified.” Both Habakkuk and Paul single out πίστις/אֱמוּנָה (ʾĕmûnâ) as the quality that God’s righteous people need as they look to the future. And, though many interpreters insist that Paul’s “faith” is quite different from the “faithfulness” that Habakkuk calls for, the two words, if not synonymous, nevertheless occupy overlapping semantic ranges. The OT אֱמוּנָה has the basic sense of “firmness,” “steadiness of conviction,” but this firmness includes the root attitude toward God that Paul designates as faith. The biggest difference between Habakkuk and Paul seems to lie in the use of the verb, “live.” Most interpreters of Habakkuk think that this word has the simple sense of “live one’s life,” while Paul, as we have argued, uses “live” in a soteriological sense. Nevertheless, at the risk of being accused of reading Paul into Habakkuk, there is some basis to think that Habakkuk himself uses the word with a more theological nuance: “experience God’s blessing.” In general, then, Paul’s application of Hab. 2:4 is just that: a legitimate reappropriation of a key prophetic witness to the priority of faith in relating to God. Paul is undoubtedly drawn to this passage because, along with Gen. 15:6, it is one of the few OT texts that connect “righteousness” language with faith.
Thomas Schreiner: It is obvious that righteousness is not via the law, for the righteous will gain eschatological life by faith. In this context the verb “shall live” (ζήσεται) must be understood in light of the verb “is justified” (δικαιοῦται), and hence in this context it refers to eschatological life. Such life is obtained not by means of works but through faith. . .
Habakkuk functions as a paradigm for the people of God. He will continue to trust the Lord even if the fig tree does not blossom and vines are lacking fruit (Hab 3:17–18). He will continue to trust in and rejoice in God’s promise of future salvation.
III. (:12) THE LAW AND FAITH ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE WHEN IT COMES TO THE ISSUE OF JUSTIFICATION
Quote from Lev. 18:5
“However, the Law is not of faith;
on the contrary, ‘He who practices them shall live by them.'”
Timothy George: No doubt there were some people in Paul’s day, as there are in ours, who held that justification by faith was a good idea so long as it was not taught to the exclusion of justification by works. “God helps those who help themselves” is a maxim of theology as well as economics. Paul, however, would tolerate no such theory because, as he said, “the law is not based on faith.”
John MacArthur: To live by law is to live by self-effort and leads inevitably to failure, condemnation, and death. To live by faith is to respond to God’s grace and leads to justification and eternal life”
Warren Wiersbe: Law says, “Do and live!” but grace says, “Believe and live!”
Ronald Fung: Faith and law appear as two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive principles. Paul’s point is proved: “the law is not based on faith” (NIV).
Richard Longenecker: Here in v 12 Paul sets out his thesis in as abbreviated a form as possible: νόμος (“law”) and πίστις (“faith”) are mutually exclusive as bases for righteousness. Paul does not attempt to give reasons; his intention is only to enunciate the principle and cite Lev 18:5 in support. In his further discussion of the law in 3:19–25, however, he sets out several reasons that apply here as well:
(1) the law was given in salvation history to uncover sin, at times even by rousing it to action, and so functions for another purpose and on a different level than faith (3:19, 22; cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7–12);
(2) the law has no power to make alive (3:21), a statement indirectly presupposing the spiritual death of all mankind (cf. Rom 5:12, 17–18; 8:3); and
(3) the redeeming work of Christ is God’s answer for sin-enslaved mankind (3:22, 24).
Douglas Moo: Faith, Paul implies, is the only instrument by which justification/life can be attained: whether at the beginning of one’s Christian experience or at its end. And, though in this context directed explicitly against doing the law, the torah, Paul’s argument in these verses transcends the particular circumstances of his situation. For his polemic is not only directed to the law but also to “doing”; indeed, one of the reasons (although not the only one) why Paul denies that the law can lead to justification is precisely because it is, by its nature, something to be “done.” The Reformers, therefore, were entirely justified to find in Paul’s argument here a fundamental and universally valid principle about the exclusive value of believing versus doing.
Thomas Schreiner: Paul rejects any notion that the law is the source of life. One does not become right with God by doing but by believing. Paul has already taught in 3:10 that righteousness by works of law is impossible since the law requires perfect obedience. We must also keep in mind that he writes from the perspective of fulfillment of God’s promises in Christ. The covenant with Moses, then, is no longer in force. What makes one right with God with the arrival of the new covenant is faith in Christ—not keeping the commands found in the Sinai covenant.
IV. (:13-14) CHRIST HAS REDEEMED US FROM THE CURSE OF THE LAW
Quote from Deut. 21:23
A. Person Accomplishing Our Redemption: “Christ”
B. Principles of Redemption (points taken from Robert Gromacki here)
- It is a Finished Redemption — “redeemed” — aorist active indicative
Max Anders: Redeem means “to buy out of slavery by paying a price.” This word was used when someone purchased a slave for the purpose of freeing them. When Jesus died on the cross, he took our curse upon himself. Through his substitutionary atonement, Christ paid the penalty of the curse. When we believe in him, he frees us from the slavery of the law.
- It is a Personal Redemption — “us“
- It is a Purposeful Redemption — “from the curse of the Law“
- It is a Substitutionary Redemption — very costly
“having become a curse for us“
F. F. Bruce: The curse of Dt. 27:26 was pronounced at the end of a covenant-renewal ceremony and had special reference therefore to the covenant-breaker. Christ accordingly underwent the penalty prescribed for the covenant-breaker. . .
Re “us” — That Gentiles as well as Jews are in view is confirmed by the emphasis on εἰς τὰ ἔθνη in the continuation of the present sentence (v 14); cf. τὰ πάντα in v 22 (συνέϰλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν) and the inclusive language and argument of vv 23–27; 4:4–6. (Cf. G. Howard, Crisis, 59.)
Richard Longenecker: For Jews, the proclamation of a crucified Messiah was scandalous (cf. 1 Cor 1:23; Gal 5:11), “a blasphemous contradiction in terms” (Bruce, Galatians, 166). Undoubtedly the central problem for all Jewish Christians was how to understand Jesus as God’s Messiah and yet as cursed by God, with the magnitude of the problem only heightened by the pronouncement of Deut 21:23. The process as to how early Christians came to understand Jesus as both Messiah and accursed may be obscure, but their conclusion is clear: the curse of the cross was “an exchange curse” wherein Christ became a curse for us (cf. esp. 2 Cor 5:21). And it is just such an assertion that appears in 3:13a, which we believe is probably an early Christian confession used by Paul.
Thomas Schreiner: The substitutionary work of Christ is central to understanding the entire paragraph. It is sometimes objected that the demand for perfect obedience to the Mosaic law is alien to the Sinai covenant. After all, those who sinned under the Mosaic law could offer sacrifice and receive atonement, and hence some interpreters reject the notion that flawless obedience is required. Those who argue in such a way have failed to see a crucial step in Paul’s argument. Now in one sense the Mosaic covenant required perfect obedience, and that is why sacrifices were necessary to forgive transgressions. But with the coming of Christ, a new era in the history of salvation has arrived. OT animal sacrifices no longer atone for sin. Therefore, those who place themselves under the law must keep the law perfectly (see 3:10, 12) now that Christ has arrived. By placing themselves afresh under the law, they have repudiated Christ’s sacrifice. And OT sacrifices are no longer effective, for that which they pointed to—the sacrifice of Christ—has arrived. Christ is the only means by which the curse of the law can be removed. The Judaizers, who worried so much about release from the law’s curse, actually stood under it.
C. Prophetic Aside – Testifying to the Curse Accompanying Law Breakers
“for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree“
Timothy George: But in what sense could Christ have become a curse for us? Although Jesus was born “under the law” (4:4), he did not merit the curse of the law for any wrongdoing he had committed because he was as “an unblemished and spotless lamb” (1 Pet 1:19). Yet both the fact and the manner of his death brought him inexorably under the curse of the law. To prove this point from Scripture, Paul again reached back to Deut 21:23 and quoted the text: “Anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse.” Admittedly, the original reference was not to crucifixion, a Roman style of execution abhorrent to the Jewish people. The Talmud recognizes four modes of capital punishment that were sanctioned by the Jewish people: stoning, burning, beheading, and strangling the criminal as he stood on the ground. After the execution had been carried out, the corpse of the criminal would then be hoisted onto a piece of timber, a stake or “tree,” as an indication that this person had been justly condemned as a transgressor of the divine law. It was important that the criminal’s corpse not be exposed beyond sundown because this would dishonor God and defile the land. Thus, according to John’s Gospel, the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves crucified with him were removed from their crosses before nightfall so as not to desecrate the Passover Sabbath (John 19:31). Thus, by being impaled on a cross, becoming a gory spectacle for all to see, Jesus exposed himself to the curse of the law. . . While being hung on a tree was not the curse itself but rather the public proof that the one so impaled had incurred the curse, the clear inference of the NT is that the death of Jesus by crucifixion was not a quirk of fate but instead the deliberate design of God. Thus in Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost, he declared that Jesus was handed over to his executioners to be put to death by crucifixion “according to God’s determined plan and foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23).
D. Purposes of Redemption
- Right Position — Gentile Participation in the Blessing of Abraham
“in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles“
Richard Longenecker: Paul’s arguments from Scripture in 3:6–14 conclude with two ἵνα clauses that bring to a climax in somewhat intertwined fashion the two main themes of both this section and the previous one:
(1) the blessing of Abraham given to Gentiles, and
(2) the promise of the Spirit received by faith.
Structurally, the two clauses are coordinate, and the second is not subsidiary to the first (contra G. S. Duncan, Galatians, 103; et al.). Grammatically, the two clauses are pure purpose clauses. Yet, as C. F. D. Moule has observed, “the Semitic mind was notoriously unwilling to draw a sharp dividing-line between purpose and consequence” (An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, 1st ed. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953]142).
- Right Power — Gentile Inclusion in the Receiving of the Indwelling Holy Spirit –
“that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith“
Timothy George: Indeed, we can say that here in v. 14 Paul brought together three key soteriological concepts that will dominate the later discussion in Galatians: justification, redemption, and regeneration. Each represents a distinct dimension of the salvation effected by Christ. Through pardon and acquittal Christ has removed our condemnation (justification). He has also set us free from the power of sin and death (redemption) and bestowed upon us a new life in the Spirit (regeneration). The good news of how this has happened and what it means Paul called “gospel” and “blessing.” Now for the first time he introduced a new word, “promise,” which both reaches back to the gospel of grace revealed in the blessing of Abraham and looks forward to the new life of liberty and love to which those who are in Christ have been called.
Craig Keener: Why then does Paul equate the promise with the Spirit? For Paul, the Spirit is the foretaste of the future promise (Gal. 5:5; 1 Cor. 2:9-10; cf. Heb. 6:4-5), the first fruits (Rom. 8:23) and actual down payment of the future inheritance (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:3, 13-14). Given OT promises of God pouring out his Spirit when he restored his people and their land, early Christians not surprisingly associated the Spirit with promise (Acts 1:4-5; 2:33, 38-39; Eph. 1:13). Because the Spirit is divine, receiving the Spirit is also itself the greatest gift – God dwelling among his people (e.g., Exod. 29:45-46).
John MacArthur: All of this blessing is through faith.
- Justifying faith involves self-renunciation, putting away all confidence in one’s own merit and works. Like the Israelites who had Pharaoh’s pursuing army behind them and the impassable Red Sea in front of them, the sinner must acknowledge his sinfulness and his total inability to save himself. When he sees God’s justice pursuing him and God’s judgment ahead of him, he realizes his helplessness in himself and realizes he has nowhere to turn but to God’s mercy and grace.
- Justifying faith also involves reliance on and submission to the Lord. When a sinner sees that he has no way to escape and no power in his own resources, he knows he must rely on God’s provision and power. Finally, justifying faith involves appropriation, as the sinner gratefully receives the free gift of pardon Christ offers and submits to His authority.
- Justifying faith does not have to be strong faith; it only has to be true faith. And true faith not only brings salvation to the believer but glory to the One who saves.
Thomas Schreiner: Paul is now at the conclusion of his scriptural argument. He maintains that since the Gentiles have the Holy Spirit, they enjoy the blessing of Abraham. And if they enjoy the blessing of Abraham, they are members of Abraham’s family. And if they are part of Abraham’s family by receiving the Spirit, they do not need to submit to circumcision or the law to become part of the people of God.