M.C. de Boer’s Galatians Commentary (Review)

Last updated on: October 24, 2011 at 4:07 pm by Nijay Gupta

M.C. de Boer’s Galatians Commentary (Review) 2011-10-24T16:07:01-08:00 Nijay Gupta

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Personally, I was never really attracted to the book of Galatians in my younger Christian years. There was too much anger and annoyance and hair-splitting (so I thought) in that letter over “justification.” This was a scholar’s debate and caused me to be soporific. Then I discovered the so-called New Perspective and I saw this text as something very relevant and a “big deal” in its own time and had great relevance for our time as well.

I read Richard Hays’ very excellent commentary on Galatians in the New Interpreter’s Series which bursts with narrative and theological energy. While I still prefer Philippians and 2 Corinthians, thanks to Hays (and Wright and Dunn), I am more appreciative of what Galatians has to offer now.

So, it was with some enthusiasm that I obtained Martinus de Boer’s new Galatians commentary in the NTL (WJK, 2011) series. It is probably one of the weightiest volumes in the still-unfinished collection – at about 450 pages. That is about 50 pages more than the Revelation commentary, while Galatians itself is much shorter than the book by St. John the Divine!

In any case, one might wonder, is there anything new to say? I wondered the same, but I am happy to report that Boer brings a fresh reading to the text, quite unique and engaging. This can be quite jarring at times, as he experiments with various new theories, but for those of us who have trudged through many a commentary on Galatians, it is like a breath of fresh air to see a scholar thinking outside the box and offering new readings of old texts.

Anyone who has read Boer before knows that he neither favors the Lutheran/traditional camp on Paul, nor the so-called New Perspective, but a “Paul and Apocalyptic” camp that has people like Ernst Käsemann, Lou Martyn, and Chris Beker as forefathers (and current campers like Beverly Gaventa, Douglas Campbell, and John Barclay; I would say people like Mike Gorman and Jimmy Dunn [and me] are “apocalyptic-lite” – warm to these cosmic issues, but not “full-blown”). Indeed, Boer does a rather fine job of taking something like Martyn’s perspective on Galatians in his Anchor commentary and distilling it, while still offering some unique insights on particular verses.

Here are some distinctives of Boer’s commentary

Gal 1:3-5 – Boer has an excursus on “Galatians and Apocalyptic Eschatology” which is one of the finest short essays on this “apocalyptic” perspective I have read (31-35). One distinctive of this view is seeing evil powers, and “Sin” and “Death” in particular, as the enemies of God from whom he liberates enslaved humanity: “For Paul, the problem that needs to be addressed is not so much ‘sins,’ transgressions of divinely given commandments, as Sin, a malevolent enslaving and godlike power under which all human beings are held captive” (p. 35).

Gal 1:16 – Was God pleased to reveal his Son to Paul (focusing on his recognition of Christ), or to reveal his Son through Paul (as Gospel herald)? Boer says: neither! Boer reads this as God being pleased to reveal his Son within Paul, meaning that the revelation of Christ inside of Paul brought an end to Paul’s former life, and launched a whole new life as a part of new creation: “God entered into the life of Paul, the persecutor of God’s church and an extremely zealous, law-observant Pharisee, in order to bring that manner of life to a complete and irrevocably end…One manner of life had been utterly destroyed, and new one had taken its place” (93). While this reading fits Boer’s apocalyptic stance, I am not sure all of that can be read into this statement.

Gal 2:16 – pistis Christou – it probably will not surprise you that Boer prefers the subjective genitive reading of the “faith of Christ,” as many apocalyptic-Pauline interpreters (like Martyn and Campbell) have a similar approach. From Boer’s perspective, the new age has been ushered in by the “faith[fullness] of Christ” – “his atoning death on a cross” (p. 150).

One of the challenges in the apocalyptic frame of interpretation is that it focuses too much on discontinuity with the OT/Judaism, while people like Dunn might appear to be guilty of the opposite – too much continuity. Boer, in my opinion, goes too far in saying that Paul was concerned with the law (Torah) because it was, itself, “one of these cosmic powers” that enslaved mortals (p 210). There was no way to obey it because it was a cursing entity, according to Boer. Later, Boer tries to have Paul make this case by (the apostle) modifying the LXX of Deut 21:23 to say that “Accursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” rather than “Cursed by God is everyone…” (see p 212). Again, Boer has noticed something I never have before (the missing “by God”), but to conclude that Paul himself is demonizing Torah is a stretch, I think. Again, he argues that Paul viewed the law as “illegitimate tampering by a third party” (i.e., angels, see 228-29).

Boer has a creative way of dealing with Paul’s more positive statement about “fulfilling the law” (5:14). He argues that Paul does not mean the Mosaic “Law,” but the promises of God (to Abraham and others) in Scripture. Thus, Boer sees Paul separating Scripture into two kinds of “law” – Moses-law and Promise-law (see 344). Again, this seems far-reaching and creates more problems than it solves, although Boer shows a remarkable consistency in his approach. For example, in regards to 5:6 “faith working through love,” he does not read this as our (human) faith, but rather as “Christ’s faith(fullness) becoming effective through his self-giving love for us” (p. 318). This fits his apocalyptic, Christo-centric hermeneutic, but I find it rather strained, as Paul has a normal interest in the faith and love of his converts (see 1 Thess 1:3; 3:6; 5:8; Philemon 5). What Boer does have in his favor is coherence with his own reading of Gal 2:20, where he reads this in reference to the “faith(fullness) of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Whether this is a convincing enough grounds for how to read 5:6 I will leave up to you.

conclusion

I have read and reviewed a number of volumes of the NTL series (e.g., Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Timothy, 1-2 Peter) and have felt, overall, that none of these were distinctively fresh readings, but competent representatives of standard interpretations (with Sumney’s work on Colossians, perhaps, standing out a bit as exemplary). Boer has, I think, produced a truly unique volume. I very much appreciated his creativity and “close reading” of the text. While I tended to disagree with him on most occasions, it was a polite disagreement, except for his one-sided demonization of Torah in Paul’s eyes.

Is this commentary worthy of acquiring? I would say that if you own Martyn, you will probably get something similar out of this. However, if you don’t, it is worthwhile because it is helpful to see the “apocalyptic” perspective, alongside the NPP and traditional ones, because it is a third perspective that has valid criticisms of both of the other camps.

A note about the series itself: it is rather tough to read because it follows paragraphs and pericopes, not individual verses. Also, there is little (if any!) discussion of “theology” or “application.” It is pretty much straight-up social/literary/historical exegesis. At times, I wish Boer would have drawn out implications of his readings (esp on the faithfulness of Christ, and criticism of law as evil power), but if you go in with such hopes, you will be disappointed. This is not a criticism of Boer, but a warning that the NTL is quite strictly historical-critical. If you acknowledge that in the first instance, you can read it for what it is.

In the end, the margins of my copy have many question marks, but I also found Boer remarkably adroit and provocative (mostly in a good way)! We should be willing to read commentaries that take alternative positions and learn within a community of scholarship. I try to read any piece of scholarship hoping to learn something, and when I do that, I often come away with good food for thought — and in this case I thank Boer for that.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 21, 2011

Horizons in Bib Theology (33.2) online

Next Post

October 26, 2011 Simply Jesus - first impressions

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category (Mis)Understanding Philippians 10 Things I Can't Live Without 2023 New Books 30 OT HB Scholars to Read and Follow 5 Books Series 50-2-Follow Academia Christian Theologians to Read and Follow Cruciform Scripture: Contributor Reflections Crux Sola TV Editors Behind Great Books in NT Studies Education Gendering the Holy Spirit Gupta FB Live Lectures In Faith and Doubt In Their Own Words Living the King Jesus Gospel My Top 6 OT Commentaries New Testament Resource Guide New Word Biblical Themes Nijay's A Very Library Christmas Shopping Guide Notes from an Editor Notes on New Books NTRG OT in the NT Paul Seminary Now The Bible in God's World The Word Felt Among Us SPENCER Translating Philippians Uncategorized Why I Use Accordance Women in Ministry

Select a Month March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 May 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz