Galatians (CCF)
Galatians. Commentaries for Christian Formation. N. T. Wright. Eerdmans, 2021. 439 pp. Hardcover. $39.99
Many Ref. 21 readers will recognize N. T. Wright as one of the biggest (and one of the most controversial) names in Pauline studies. He has produced numerous monographs on Paul and the NT, as well as the popular-level commentary series, “The New Testament for Everyone.” However, it wasn’t until this last year that he published his first-ever major commentary.
His commentary on Galatians is the first installment of a new series from Eerdmans, “Commentaries for Christian Formation.” As the name suggests, Wright concludes every chapter (albeit quite briefly) with some thoughts on how the crisis in Galatia and the apostle’s response might encourage the spiritual growth of Paul’s readers. What the future volumes of CCF will offer remains to be seen, but the tone that Wright sets for the series is one of academic rigor that remains succinct and avoids the bog of footnotes and the mire of Greek analysis. A knowledge of Greek or a specialized awareness of Pauline scholarship is by no means a barrier to entry for this commentary. The book comes in at 419 pages and Wright apportions a generous word count to theological analysis, just as he does to matters of historical background including an emphasis on Paul’s own Jewishness. He moves seamlessly between discussing grammatical issues and their theological payoff. Where he does selectively interact closely with the Greek he uses transliterations, and his insights are worth the slow-down in his argumentation - as with, e.g., his discussion of 2:19-20.
If you are familiar with the content of Wright’s other works (especially Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Paul: A Biography or What Saint Paul Really Said), then, in a way, you are already familiar with this commentary. You will also recognize the Wright-ian hobby horses, which are kicked dead twice-over in this book: salvation is not a Platonic rising of the soul to heaven, the social and the soteriological are intertwined (perhaps identical?), Luther got Paul wrong, and so do “Lutheran” interpreters (by which he seems to mean the whole Reformed tradition). Regarding this last point, Reformed readers of Wright’s commentary will sometimes recognize themselves in it, for instance, as those who insist on sola fide. Often though, when Wright paints a “Lutheran” or “Reformed” perspective, the Reformed reader will recognize that he is speaking more about a popularized western evangelicalism with a vision of heaven as populated with floating cherubs or a misunderstanding that the only thing that matters to Paul is either “getting to heaven” or “social justice.”
The reader will also recognize the Wright-ian style that always makes an enjoyable read. His zippy writing and wit help him to cut through the thick noise of academic debates over grammatical and interpretive issues in Galatians. In fact, one of the greatest achievements of this commentary is that its readers will easily be able to work cover-to-cover, rather treat it merely as a look-up-by-verse resource. Perhaps more commentators should aspire to this. Wright accomplishes this not only by his excellent prose (in Eerdmans’ attractive formatting), but by emphasizing how Paul’s logic flows from one segment of text to the next and highlighting the real drama and tension that Paul’s first readers would have sensed as they moved through the apostle’s letter. Wright does much of this work in substantive introductions to each of the commentary’s chapters. Readers should also not make the mistake of skipping over Wright’s helpful and enjoyable 20-page introduction to the whole commentary.
Another familiar facet of Wright’s writing style is his independence. Positively, this means that his commentary spends less time than others explaining the “5 common options” for a given question and arguing for one of them with the same arguments used in other commentaries (frequent commentary-users will know exactly what I mean). It also means he regularly offers original exegetical argumentation, including helpful analyses of second-temple Jewish parallels which others usually relegate to a parenthetical reference. One might say he reads Galatians “in fresh perspective.”
Negatively, Wright’s independence — as clear as his writing is — can make him painfully difficult to understand, because it leaves unclear at points how his readings differ from or align with others. This is especially the case, for example, when it comes to how Wright relates this matrix of ideas: the word “justification” in Paul, “justification” as used by systematic theologians, Paul’s understanding of salvation, and the social standing of membership in the believing community.
His independence is also reflected in his citations. His “index of authors” is telling; it’s surprisingly short for a major commentary of this size and reveals that the great preponderance of references is to his own previous works. Granted, this commentary is nothing less than Wright’s life-long labors in Galatians finally put into a cohesive reading. But aside from a few of his own students’ dissertations, it is disappointing how little he responds to or builds on the last decade’s embarrassing wealth of Pauline scholarship.
Those familiar with the contours of the debate over the “New Perspective on Paul” or the more hotly contested issues in Galatians will recognize that this commentary should be used critically. It is difficult to summarize and evaluate a commentary’s contents as one might do for a typical book, but here are some highlights:
Wright’s deep familiarity with Jewish literature makes him consistently more perceptive than others in situating Paul’s theology against the backdrops of second-temple Jewish eschatology and Israel’s whole history. In his introduction he rejects the dichotomy between a “covenantal” perspective (one that emphasizes continuity between Israel’s history and the new people of Christ) and the ever-so-fashionable “apocalyptic” perspective (which emphasizes Christ’s work as creating radical discontinuity with prior history). Wright correctly sees the cross of Christ in Paul’s thought as both a fulfillment of time and a radical intrusion of God’s righteousness (cf. Rom. 1:17) into space and time. (Wright’s Galatians commentary will make for an interesting comparison to the series’ forthcoming volume on Romans rumored to be authored by a major “apocalyptic Paul” proponent).
Some might be familiar with the debate over the phrase “pistis Christou” (πίστις Χρίστου), which could mean “our faith in Christ” or “Christ’s own faithfulness” or “Christian faith.” If you are unfamiliar, look at Gal. 2:16-17 where the ESV translates “faith in Christ” two times and consider the implications of the other translations. Whenever the phrase occurs in the book, Wright follows Richard Hay’s “subjective genitive” proposal (“Christ’s faithfulness”). But at points Wright will also insist that Paul has in mind a fuller meaning, so that the phrase does refer to our faith in Christ, but precisely as the result of Christ’s first faithfulness towards the Father and us.
At this point, Wright moves beyond his previous work by incorporating the conclusions of Teresa Morgan’s major 2017 publication of Roman Faith and Christian Faith. Wright consistently describes “faith” as more than a believer’s act of “trust,” but just as much an engagement or incorporation into the messianic community. This would parallel, for example, how a Roman citizen might be “faithful” to the empire. Its sense is not only one of affirming the trustworthiness of the empire, and being “loyal” to it, but involves participation in a social identity. Appreciating the sociological background to the concept of “faith” may open doors for further exploring the fullness of the concept. Though, of course, a purely “social-loyalty” faith would be highly problematic. Again, it is difficult to pin down just how Wright squares the active or “relational” (to use Morgan’s word) aspect of faith with its essentially Pauline meaning of trust and dependence on Christ.
Equally problematic is Wright’s insistence that “justification” in Galatians should be understood in its “primary ecclesiological meaning” (128) before we assign it a forensic, soteriological significance. The series’ emphasis on formation leads Wright to occasionally take up the mantle of contemporary matters of justice, which he grounds in this sociological understanding of the term “justify.” Wright is good to remind us that our salvation in Christ means at once that we must live out our new-creational unity with other believers. But it does not seem to this reviewer, contra Wright, that it is imposing Reformed doctrine onto Paul’s language to insist that justification/righteousness are ideas that deal with man’s forensic (legal) relationship before a righteous God. Romans 3:21-31, to give one example, seems to teach just such a thing. But God’s righteous act in Christ which makes men righteous also does create a new people. This is the pattern of thought in Ephesians 2. The important distinction to recognize is this: God has created a just and peaceable people precisely because he has united them in Christ. Their righteous status also comes from their union with Christ; it is not grounded in their visible membership in the community of believers. None of this takes away from Wright’s reasonable claim that “Galatians is all about the unity of the church” (339), but properly grounds it - as Paul does in Galatians 2 - in the believer’s righteous standing before God that comes by faith in Christ.
So, should you order a copy? If you are a NT scholar, then yes. It is an independent commentary full of fresh insight that offers this New-Perspective scholar’s first full reading of a Pauline book. If you are a preacher, then yes. When you’re in the study, Wright’s originality will likely spark an entirely different set of thoughts on a given passage than other commentaries which tend to repeat themselves. You will have to put your seminary training to work, though, in evaluating some of Wright’s readings. If you are a bible/theology student, then sure. You’re always looking for a new commentary, right? But I wouldn’t recommend this as a textbook for a class on Galatians, for example, since what you probably want is a more traditional commentary that consistently surveys the options for every decision and fills out the footnotes. If you are a lay-reader who likes to have a commentary or two at your side while going through a biblical book, then maybe. You’ll find this one quite readable, but the issues I mentioned above mean that you might find your theological commitments frequently challenged. Whatever the case, happy reading!
Related Links
"J.V. Fesko, Galatians," reviewed by Glen Clary
"The Foundation of the New Perspective" by Jeff Waddington
"A Prayer for the Church (Galatians 5:16-26)" by Chad Van Dixhoorn
Galatians (Reformed Expository Commentary) by Philip G. Ryken
Galatians, a sermon series by Eric Alexander
