Q. In one sense Gal. 3.23-4.7 is where the rubber really meets the road, a Pauline summary that sort of ties a lot of things together. You have called it the ‘heart of Paul’s theology’ (p. 236). Can you explain what you mean by that? A. Well, the ‘heart’ or ‘centre’ of P’s theology is always a problem. What I mean is that here Paul is telling the story of ‘before—then Christ—then after’. Obviously he can do this in many... Read more

Q. When we get to the whole issue of ‘sperma’ in Gal. 3.16, I was not clear whether or not you were saying that Paul says Christ is the seed, or Christ and all believers are the seed of Abraham. In any case, since ‘in Christ’ is incorporative, and as you point out sometimes Paul even uses the term ‘Christ’ to refer to his body, i.e. his people, why is it important to say that ‘sperma’ itself is collective in... Read more

Q. One of the places where I think you and I do disagree somewhat significantly is whether or not the new covenant is about covenant renewal (ala Deut. 30 etc.) or not. My answer would be – Paul says it is not. He’s talking about a genuinely new covenant that contrasts with the Mosaic one in various regards (ala Gal. 4, 2 Cor. 3). Even for Jews in Christ this is not about restoration of something that existed previously, it’s... Read more

Q. I have some questions about your reading of the Abraham story. The children of Abraham are not ‘Israel people’, not least because there was no Israel in Abraham’s time of any sort. Israel proper comes later in Moses’ day. Secondly, the blessing of the nations in Abraham, especially in the context of a letter mainly to Gentile new Christians is surely to be seen as a reference NOT to Israel but to the ethnoi as opposed to the laoi.... Read more

  Q. I think you are exactly right that Paul is saying in Gal. 3.1ff. that the Spirit is involved in the believer’s life from the outset. It is not somehow received as a ‘2nd blessing’ or some kind of baptism of the Spirit that comes subsequent to conversion. At least in some Protestant contexts somehow the Spirit has been turned into an it or a force (may the force be with you) rather than a person, and this in... Read more

Q. Let’s talk for a moment about metalepsis, which shows up in several places in this commentary (e.g. pp. 172-73). The concept is that Paul has the whole of an OT passage in mind when he cites for example the story of Abraham from Gen. 12 or 15. This view which our good friend Richard Hays has championed, is set in opposition to the proof text view of yanking individual verses out of context and using them. I think however... Read more

Q. In another context, in my Romans commentary, I have stressed that Paul is not an advocate of ‘imputed righteousness’ in the traditional Reformed sense. So we don’t need to go down the rabbit hole of ‘it’s a legal fiction’ or ‘when God looks at me, he simply sees the righteous Jesus’ or even ‘Christ’s obedience to God’s law’ means I am exempt from having to do that, I stand by faith alone. I agree with the idea that Christ’s... Read more

Q. As for the phrase ‘works of the Law’ and 4QMMT the latter says ‘these are some of the works of the Law’ so it does not identify the boundary rituals, circumcision, food laws, sabbath keeping, by a delimiting term ‘works of the law’, nor do I think Paul does that. Yes, he is talking about the boundary rituals in Galatians, but for Paul ‘dying to the Mosaic law’ or the Redeemer redeeming Jews out from under the Mosaic covenant... Read more

Q. In some ways your take on dikaiosune as applied to the believer seems very much traditional— it means to be declared righteous on the basis of Christ’s faithfulness even unto death on the cross. In other words, it is about what is traditionally called justification, or ‘right standing with God’. One then wonders why John Piper and others have gone ballistic over your take on this crucial term. Did they just not understand your point? For me personally, I... Read more

Q. While I take your point about Christos being a title, not really just a name for Jesus, in Paul’s writings, when you go on to say not merely that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah or representative, but in some sense Jesus is Israel, and if you are ‘in Him’ you are in Israel, this seems a leap. The problem with Jesus=Israel, is, so far as I can see, Paul uses the term Israel, for example in Rom. 9-11 to mean... Read more