Galatians 3:13–14: Mere Assertion?

By Debbie Hunn

[Debbie Hunn is the Reference Librarian at Dallas Theological Seminary.]

ABSTRACT

Galatians 3:13 states that Christ redeemed “us” from the curse of the law. Verse 14 then draws a stunning conclusion: Christ provided this redemption in order that the blessing of Abraham might be in Christ for the Gentiles and that “we” might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. The conciseness of Paul’s argument in Gal 3:13–14 has made it difficult to follow and has fostered the idea of unproven assertions within it. But unproven assertions that are contrary to the thinking of the Galatians would fail to persuade. In Paul’s day, as today, readers expected a high standard of logical reasoning in argumentation. This article sets vv. 13–14 in their context to contend that they deal with justification, not with an individual’s manner of life or with Israel in exile. Then after identifying “us” as Jews in v. 13 and “we” as both Jews and Gentiles in v. 14, it examines the ties between redemption for Jews in v. 13, the Abrahamic promise for Gentiles in v. 14a, and reception of the Spirit in v. 14b in order to determine what evidence Paul uses to support his claims. Paul draws on common ground that he shares with his readers and substantiates exactly those points on which he and they might differ. The article concludes that Paul’s argument adheres to a strict standard of logic, one both appropriate for his time and convincing by western standards.

I. Introduction

Galatians 3:10–12 reveals the problem of the law: it curses, but will not justify. Verse 13 explains the solution: Christ redeemed “us” from the curse of the law. Verse 14 then draws a stunning conclusion: Christ provided redemption from the curse of the law in order that the blessing of Abraham might be in Christ for the Gentiles and that “we” might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.[1] Although the argument in vv. 13–14 has the virtue of brevity, one might question whether it is entirely to the point.

Why, for example, does Paul speak of Jews under the law to make the point that Gentiles receive the Abrahamic blessing in Christ?[2] And on what grounds does he relate the promise of the Spirit to the blessing of Abraham? The purpose of this article is not to offer a new interpretation of vv. 13–14, but to explain the connections between these two verses and to demonstrate that Paul includes enough evidence for his position to persuade his original readers.

The text reads as follows:

3:13 Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα, ὅτι γέγραπται· ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου, 

3:14 ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γένηται ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως.

The NRSV translates:

3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 

3:14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.[3]

II. Explanations in the Literature

Attempts to understand how Paul uses Deut 21:23 to support redemption by crucifixion in Gal 3:13 or how he connects vv. 13 and 14 are rare. J. L. Martyn, for example, notes without explanation that the blessing comes on the Gentiles now that the cursing voice of the law has been silenced.[4] Richard Hays analyzes vv. 13–14 in terms of narrative structure and focuses on harmonizing them with 4:3–6 rather than probing the argument in 3:13–14.[5] Frank Thielman lists five explanations of vv. 10–14, but each explains only vv. 10–12.[6] Thielman himself deals with vv. 13–14 in two brief paragraphs and does not explain why the Galatians should accept Paul’s view.[7]

N. T. Wright, however, does examine the connections between vv. 13 and 14. Wright takes the first person plural in both verses to refer to Jews because it was Jews, not Gentiles, who were under Torah and because v. 14 with this understanding provides a dual solution to the problem caused by Torah: “blessing for the Gentiles … and new covenant for Israel.”[8] Unlike most scholars, Wright does not believe that vv. 10–14 are concerned with the justification of individuals. Instead, he believes that when Paul quotes Deut 27:26 in Gal 3:10 and Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12, he situates vv. 10–14 in Deut 27–30 and Lev 20:22–25; 26:14–43—contexts about national exile and restoration—in order to show that Israel as a nation was still in exile.[9]

The problem of the curse of exile on Israel in Gal 3:10–12 is then resolved in vv. 13–14. According to Wright, Torah piled up the sin of the world upon Israel.[10] Then, because Israel’s Messiah represents Israel, he was able “to take on himself Israel’s curse and exhaust it.”[11] Subsequently, as Deut 30 foresaw, blessing followed the curse, and restoration the exile.[12] Thus Gal 3:14 follows from v. 13 with blessing for both Jew and Gentile.

One problem with this view, however, is that Paul cites three OT passages in vv. 10–12: Deut 27:26, about “everyone who does not observe” (πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει) Torah; Hab 2:4, about “the one who is righteous” (ὁ δίκαιος); and Lev 18:5, about “whoever does” (ὁ ποιήσας) Torah: three passages centered on individuals.[13] When Wright takes Deut 27:26 and Lev 18:5 back to their contexts, he finds exile for national failure, which he imports into Paul’s quotations. He fails to note both that the quotations apply to individuals and that other verses in their immediate contexts do as well.[14]

Furthermore, if Paul were to build his argument upon the ideas that Israel was currently in exile and that Torah piled up the sins of the Gentiles upon Israel, he would have to offer evidence because both ideas contradict the thinking of his readers.[15] The Galatians were turning to the law, not to join a people in exile and have the sins of other Gentiles added to their own, but because they believed that they could be justified by it (5:4). In addition, a group of Gentiles would hardly find it obvious that a nation living in its own land was in exile even if it were under foreign domination. In fact, Lev 26:14–43, which Wright acknowledges as part of the context of 18:5, begins by saying that if Israel would not obey God, they would be ruled by their enemies (vv. 14–17). Successive penalties would follow for continued disobedience (cf. vv. 19, 22, 25), the final being exile (v. 34). Foreign rule was not equivalent to exile in the context of Lev 18:5 or in Israel’s history: the former began early in the days of the judges (e.g., Judg 3:8, 12–14; 4:1–2) whereas the latter occurred only late in the period of the monarchs.[16] If Paul believed that Israel was yet in exile in his day, he had little reason to believe it from the OT.[17]

Moisés Mayordomo takes a different approach from Wright and subjects Gal 3:6–14 to a logical analysis. He notes, for example, the syllogism in v. 13:

1. Every crucified person was accursed. (major premise)
2. Jesus was crucified. (minor premise)
3. Therefore Jesus was accursed. (conclusion)

However, he says of v. 13 that the asyndetic connection, the change to the first person, and the kerygmatic character of the speech are signs that Paul has turned from argumentation to a confessional mode. Mayordomo observes that with the exception of the scriptural proof from Deut 27:26, logically relevant connecting particles are missing in v. 13 and that the two ἵνα-clauses in v. 14 are not written in the form of a conclusion. He surmises that Paul grounds his argument in vv. 13–14 on the kerygma. More specifically, he finds 2:21 to be virtually axiomatic to the entire argument in 3:6–14.[18]

The problem with this view is that 2:21, “… if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing”—which Paul relates from his argument with Peter but has not yet verified for the Galatians—is precisely the point at issue. If the Galatians acknowledged this statement as axiomatic, Paul would have had no argument with them. If they did not acknowledge it, he could not build upon it an argument that they would accept.

III. Paul and Logic

As the explanations of 3:13–14 in the literature indicate, few scholars examine the connections between vv. 13, 14a, and 14b; and those who do, do not appreciate Paul’s need to convince the Galatians of his stand. Paul, however, cannot merely state his opinion to a hostile audience; he must offer evidence—evidence convincing to them—for the points where he and they disagree.

Some scholars hesitate to use logical analysis to evaluate Paul’s arguments because they do not believe it fits Paul’s time. Heikki Räisänen, for example, says, “I am fully aware of a certain anachronistic touch in [a rigorous] analysis of Paul’s theology from the point of view of common sense logic.”[19] Sean Kealy criticizes Jan Lambrecht’s book Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus on the grounds that “one has the feeling sometimes that [Lambrecht’s] detailed exegesis may be too abstract, too dominated by western logic.”[20] Clark Pinnock explains that he is “in the process of learning to read the Bible from a new point of view, one that … is more truly evangelical and less rationalistic.”[21]

Other scholars assume at least some use of western logic. E. D. Burton, for example, understands Gal 3:18 as a syllogism, and J. L. Martyn understands v. 20 similarly.22 Moisés Silva says that “every single citation in vv. 6–14 is characterized by some kind of logical gap,” but he promptly adds that this is because Paul does not spell out the necessary premises, not because he lacks them.23 Although scholars examine Paul’s conclusions in vv. 13–14, I have found no one who tries to close the logical gaps in the argument.

D. A. Carson, however, observes:

The basic laws of logic—such as the law of noncontradiction or the law of the excluded middle—are not inventions of Aristotle or formulations of some other savant, but discoveries to do with the nature of reality and of communication. They do no more than affirm that certain relationships obtain if communication is possible and coherent, and if any truth whatsoever may be known.… The substratum of any communication, whether between two individuals or two ages, is simple logic, regardless of the literary genre in which the communication is embedded.[24]

Paul demonstrates logical thinking in his epistles. For example, his argument in Rom 4:2–4 is a syllogism in reverse order: (1) Wages for work are earned (major premise, v. 4). (2) Abraham’s faith was credited as righteousness, that is, his righteousness was unearned (minor premise, v. 3). (3) Therefore, Abraham was not declared righteous by works (conclusion, v. 2). Paul discusses faulty conclusions his readers might draw in Rom 6:1–3; 7:7–11; and Gal 3:21–22. He argues from lesser to greater or from greater to lesser in Rom 5:7–9; 1 Cor 6:2–3; 9:11–12; and 2 Cor 3:7–11. In Rom 4:9–10 and 1 Cor 15:12–13 he cites a counterexample to disprove a general statement. In 1 Cor 4:7 he grounds his position on the principle that it is impossible for both X and not X to hold.

Paul’s contemporaries had a heightened awareness of logic. The work of Aristotle (384–322 BC) and the Stoics in logic described the reasoning already used in good argumentation and became widely known in the Greek world.[25] The Roman Quintilian (35–100 AD), the most influential rhetorician in Paul’s day, relied heavily on the Greeks in his Institutio Oratoria.[26] In Inst. 5.13.60–5.14 Quintilian described some of the practices of distinguished orators in drawing conclusions. There he wrote about the syllogism and the validity of arguments (e.g., Inst. 5.14.1, 7–10, 26), principles considered “western logic” today.[27]

Although it is uncertain how much schooling Paul had in Greco-Roman rhetorical studies, he would have gained some knowledge of rhetorical style, including logic, even without a classical education. Duane Litfin notes that public speaking was highly popular in Paul’s time and “seemed to permeate the entire Greco-Roman world, from the emperors to the man in the street.”[28] Craig Evans lists over two hundred parallels between Paul’s epistles and pagan literature. He explains that a few contain formal quotations, that some contain allusions, but that most “probably reflect no more than the way educated people spoke Greek.”[29] Whether or not Paul had a classical education, therefore, he would have had some familiarity with the logical thinking that educated people understood in his day because of its connection with rhetoric.

To communicate with the Galatians effectively, Paul could not argue in rabbinic style. Nor could he merely state his opinion to a skeptical audience: he must offer evidence for the points where he and his audience disagree, and the evidence must be such that would persuade them.

IV. The Context and Application of Verses 13–14

In addition to the need for verification in Paul’s argument, the literature surfaced two other issues that need to be resolved in order to interpret vv. 13–14, namely, the focus of the context in which the verses are set and the referents of the first person plural.

1. The Context as Soteriological

Galatians 3:13–14 belongs to the section on the curse of the law in vv. 10–14, which contrasts with the blessing of Abraham in vv. 6–9. The number of points scholars dispute in vv. 10–14 make dividing the section desirable, and vv. 10–12 on the pronouncement of the curse and vv. 13–14 on its removal form natural subdivisions. Nevertheless, each subsection contributes to the exegesis of the other; and in particular, vv. 10–12 situate vv. 13–14 in a soteriological context. Wright disputes this reading, as shown above, but his argument is based on notions that contradict the text.

James Dunn and Andrew Wakefield also challenge the idea of a soteriological setting in vv. 10–14, but on the basis of the meaning of “live” in vv. 11–12. Dunn understands “live” in Lev 18:5 and Gal 3:12 to indicate living life under the covenant of the law, and in Hab 2:4 and Gal 3:11 to living out a relationship on the basis of faith.[30] Wakefield, similarly, says that vv. 10–12 do not show how to gain life but where to carry it out, that is, in the old age or the new; and he understands Paul’s citations of Lev 18:5 and Hab 2:4 to reflect this. In other words, both Wakefield and Dunn recognize that Paul uses the OT verses with a “perfectly straight face,” and both build their case on the idea that “live” in Lev 18:5; Hab 2:4; and Gal 3:11–12 refers to behavior or manner of life.[31]

Dunn and Wakefield correctly read Paul to use the OT in a straightforward manner—his opponents would gladly inform the Galatians if he misrepresented it. The problem with their view is that although ζάω could speak either of conduct or of possessing life, the LXX uses it to translate the Hebrew חיה in Lev 18:5 and Hab 2:4; and the Hebrew refers to being alive, not to behavior.[32] That the life is eschatological is almost universally acknowledged in Gal 3—it is evident that the life associated with the blessing of Abraham would be of little benefit if it were only temporal.[33] Verses 10–12, then, show one to be cursed in a soteriological context, and v. 13 begins there. To understand Paul’s point, however, requires understanding the identity of the ones to whom his words apply. Who are “us” and “we” in vv. 13–14?

2. “Us” and “We” in Verses 13–14

The identity of “us” whom Christ redeemed from the curse of the law in v. 13a usually falls into one of three categories in the literature. Lloyd Gaston sees “us” as Gentiles while N. T. Wright and John Taylor understand a Jewish “us.”[34] Many scholars include both Jews and Gentiles in “us,” but few discuss the issue in detail.[35]

Verses 10–12—“For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse …”—impact the interpretation of v. 13 because they identify the people of works of the law as the “us” who are under its curse.[36] It is evident that Gentiles who do not place themselves under the law would not be included among people who rely on works of the law. Furthermore, Paul warns the Galatians in v. 10 against becoming law observant on the grounds that the law carries a curse. Adding in v. 13 that Gentiles are under the curse anyway would take the teeth out of his own argument. To be redeemed from the curse of a law, one must first have been under the law that pronounced the curse because “law” by its nature commands and sets penalties only for its subjects. Gentiles (who remain Gentiles) are therefore not among the “us” redeemed from the curse of the law.

That Paul speaks of the Abrahamic blessing (and therefore of justification) for Gentiles in v. 14 does not require proof of Gentile condemnation or need for redemption from sin and curse in v. 13—if the Galatians had not known that Gentiles were condemned for sin, they would not have considered turning to the law for justification in the first place. Paul deals with the points that he needs for his argument.[37]

Verse 14b poses a problem, however, if it applies only to Jews because vv. 1–5 show that “we” in v. 14b who “receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” includes the Galatians.[38] Paul could of course consider the coming of the Spirit specifically in relation to Jews, as he applied the death of Christ specifically to himself in 2:20 and the blessing of Abraham specifically to Gentiles in 3:14a. But despite Paul’s emphasis in vv. 2–5 on the Spirit, he makes no point in those verses beyond noting that the Galatians received the Spirit by faith rather than law. To speak again of the Spirit in v. 14b but with respect only to Jews leaves the emphasis on the Spirit in vv. 2–5 without a purpose. It is an inclusive “we” in v. 14b that ties the Galatians’ experience of the Spirit in vv. 2–5 to the promise of God.

Nevertheless, as Taylor notes, if Paul refers to Jewish Christians by “us” in v. 13 and to both Jewish and Gentile Christians by “we” in v. 14, he changes the antecedent of the first person plural without warning.[39] Paul’s use of pronouns, however, does not work in such a strict fashion as Taylor proposes. New Testament writers, including Paul, appear relatively unconcerned about abrupt changes in antecedents.[40] In Galatians Paul has already made unannounced changes in the referents of some pronouns. In 1:3–4 he wishes the Galatians grace and peace from God the Father and from Christ, who gave himself for “our” sins that he might deliver “us” from this present evil age. The first person plural is inclusive because it is the basis for the grace and peace Paul wishes his readers. In v. 8, however, the “we” that might preach to them is clearly exclusive.

Likewise in 2:4 Paul speaks of false believers who came to spy out “our” liberty in Christ in order to bring “us” into bondage. Galatians 5:1 applies Christian liberty to all believers; and the antagonists of 2:4, like the troublers among the Galatians, would have been looking to bring more than the apostles into bondage.[41] But the “we” who acted on behalf of “you” in 2:5 would include only Paul and select leaders. These examples show that the “we” of 3:14 need not keep the same referent as the “us” of v. 13; and as argued above, v. 13 is plausible only for Jewish Christians while v. 14b applies, in the context of vv. 1–14, to both Jewish and Gentile believers. Thus Paul speaks of Jews in v. 13, Gentiles in v. 14a, and both together in v. 14b.

V. Paul’s Proof of Verses 13–14

The Galatians now seek justification in the law: they do not realize that they were justified when they received the Spirit by believing what they heard about Christ (vv. 1–2). To make the case that they are justified by faith and not by law, Paul begins in vv. 6–9 by showing that justification is part of the Abrahamic blessing available to all peoples through faith. He then opposes the law to the blessing in vv. 10–12 and contends that the law justifies no one, but that in fact it curses all who are under it.[42]

In vv. 13–14 Paul declares that Jesus redeemed believing Jews from the curse of the law, and he explains further that their redemption locates the Abrahamic blessing in Christ for Gentiles and leads to both Jew and Gentile receiving the Spirit by faith. For Paul to convince the Galatians of his position, however, he must persuade them that: (1) the Scripture quotation in v. 13 applies to Christ and verifies that Christ redeemed Jews who believe in him from the curse of the law, (2) redemption of Jews in Christ opens the way to Gentile blessing in Christ, and (3) redemption of Jews brings the Spirit to both Jew and Gentile.

1. Deuteronomy 21:23 Applied to Christ

Scholars disagree over the validity of Paul’s claim in v. 13 that Deut 21:23—“Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”—applies to Christ in his role as redeemer. Some commentators observe that crucifixion did not exist in Israel at the time Deuteronomy was written and that Deut 21:23 would have referred to one who was executed before being hung.[43] In fact when v. 22 speaks of a person who “is executed, and you hang him on a tree” (ἀποθάνῃ, καὶ κρεμάσητε αὐτὸν ἐπὶ ξύλου [LXX]), death precedes hanging. Jewish exegetes only later came to apply it to execution by crucifixion.[44] Deuteronomy does not make an issue of the mode of death, however, and a principle about execution should pertain also to new methods. Death by suspension simply collapses the two separate actions of execution and hanging into one: the focus in Deut 21:22–23 is on the basic situation of one hanging dead on a tree.

Because Paul speaks of Christ “becoming a curse” rather than “being accursed,” however, Daniel Streett argues that Jesus was not under the curse of Deut 21:23, but that Jews who despised and rejected him made him a curse in the sense that they used his name in curse formulas.[45] Streett maintains that Christ could not have been under God’s curse because he did no wrong. He surmises instead that Paul cites Deut 21:23 since unbelieving Jews erroneously thought that Jesus was accursed by God because of it.[46] But since one could become a curse in curse formulas with or without being cursed by God, Paul would have to indicate it if he quotes Deuteronomy because it was misused. Instead Paul supports his statement that Christ became a curse with Scripture saying that one hung on a tree is accursed. He does not distinguish between the two states.

How a person came to be cursed according to Deut 21:23 is an issue scholars debate. Did criminal action, the law that mandated the death penalty for particular offenses, or the bare fact of being hung on a tree trigger the curse? Although most exegetes do not deal directly with this issue in Galatians, indirect comments often indicate a scholar’s view that crucifixion was the means of transmitting the curse.[47] But the means need not be stated in Deuteronomy or in Galatians. The fact that Deut 21:23 declares a person hung on a tree accursed verifies that Christ had been cursed.[48] The mode of execution and the cause of the curse therefore do not constitute barriers to Paul’s application of the verse to Christ.

Then on the grounds that Christ was under a curse, Paul concludes that he redeemed Jews from the curse of the law.[49] To convince the Galatians of his conclusion, Paul need not prove again that Jesus is the Christ. His unsupported references to “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus” throughout the letter indicate that they acknowledged Jesus’ messiahship. The Galatians also recognized that connection to Christ served some purpose because Paul’s cautioning about the possibility of being severed from him (κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ) in 5:4 would have carried little force otherwise. Presumably Paul knew enough about the thinking of his audience to understand where they erred.

To ascertain the basis of Paul’s argument in 3:13, it is necessary to determine common ground he still shares with his readers. Paul opens the letter by identifying himself as an apostle. Although some scholars maintain that Paul defends his apostleship to his now skeptical converts, I have argued elsewhere that his apostleship is not at issue in Galatians.[50] Paul therefore does not begin with a statement the recipients reject. He next refers to Christ’s resurrection, which again does not appear to be in question, as he nowhere in the letter defends it. His good wishes of grace and peace in v. 3 indicate as well that he has not yet begun to contend with them or to mention any point of disagreement.

Verse 4 picks up the death of Christ from v. 1 and continues the greeting in v. 3 by describing Christ, who supplies grace and peace, as the one who gave himself “for our sins” for the purpose of “set[ting] us free from the present evil age” according to the will of God. If Paul and the Galatians disagree at this point, then Paul has based his salutation upon a disputed matter as if to say, “Grace and peace from one who did what you do not think he did.” It seems unlikely as well that Paul would then base his doxology in v. 5 on the same debated points in v. 4 since it would make v. 5 as much an affront to the Galatians as praise to God. Paul may have been sarcastic at times (e.g., 2 Cor 12:13), but he was not in the habit of contending with his readers by means of glorifying God. Paul’s positive tone does not change until v. 6 when he suddenly rebukes the Galatians for turning from the gospel. It appears then that vv. 1–5 are part of the common ground between Paul and his readers.

Even in their turn from the gospel, therefore, the Galatians were not denying that the crucifixion had significance. They simply were not focused on it to consider what it meant. Paul refocuses them. In 3:10–12 he shows that the law curses Jews. For Christ’s crucifixion to be the means of setting Jews free from the present evil age in 1:4, it must be the means of redeeming them from the curse of the law in 3:10 because the eschatological age to which Christ delivers will not include curses. If, as argued above, the Galatians accept 1:4, then they should require no additional evidence that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law” in 3:13.

Paul’s claim, however, that it was by becoming a curse for them that Christ redeemed Jews does require proof. But for people who believed that the crucifixion was for others (1:4), Paul only needs to show that in it Jesus did indeed take the curse of the law upon himself and pay its penalty.[51] Therefore Paul cites Deut 21:23 in Gal 3:13: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree,” to show that Jesus bore the curse of the law. The resurrection verifies that he paid its penalty because he would not have been freed from the curse to be raised to eschatological life otherwise.[52] Hence the common ground Paul shared with the Galatians in 1:1–4 renders Deut 21:23 sufficient to prove his point in Gal 3:13.

Now what Paul understands in Christ’s “becoming a curse for us”—substitution, representation, or some alternative—is a significant theological issue.[53] However, resolving it is beyond the scope of this article because it does not call into question whether Paul sufficiently supports the fact that Christ came under the curse of the law, as does his use of Deut 21:23, or the fact that he redeemed Jews from the curse.

2. Jewish Redemption and Gentile Blessing

To convince the Galatians that they have already begun to receive the Abrahamic blessing, Paul’s leap from Christ redeeming Jews in v. 13 to Gentiles enjoying the blessing of Abraham in v. 14a would require more than mere assertion.

Paul quotes Gen 12:3/18:18 in Gal 3:8 to show that God’s intention from the call of Abraham was to bless all nations in him. Therefore to construct an argument to show that the purpose of God in v. 13 was to bring about v. 14a—as ἵνα affirms—it would suffice to show that the result of v. 13 was to place the Abrahamic blessing in Christ for Gentiles since v. 8 already confirms purpose. Verse 14a will follow then from v. 13 if two conditions hold: (1) Christ redeeming Jews from the curse of the law releases the blessing of Abraham in Christ for Jews, and (2) the Abrahamic blessing being in Christ for Jews implies that it is in Christ for Gentiles.

With respect to the first condition, it is the nature of the law that the verdict is binary: an individual is either justified or condemned, either blessed or cursed, under the law (cf. Deut 27–28) and before God. There is no middle ground. Because the law leaves no one under it in an indeterminate state with respect to its verdict, anyone under the law who is not blessed by it—and the blessing includes justification (Lev 18:5; Gal 3:12)—is cursed by it and condemned under it. Paul’s original readers would have understood this basic point without explanation. The argument of vv. 10–12 is that the law does not justify anyone under it. It follows, therefore, that the law condemns and curses all who are under it. When Christ removed the curse of condemnation from Jews who believed in him in v. 13, they then necessarily stood before God justified. Therefore the crucifixion brought about the Abrahamic blessing for Jews and brought it about in Christ.[54]

The second condition—if Jews obtain the blessing of Abraham in Christ, then Gentiles do as well—also requires verification. Because Paul has already argued in vv. 6–9 that the Abrahamic blessing is for all nations, it is enough to show that the blessing for both Jew and Gentile is available from the same source. Verse 16 quotes Genesis to say that the promise (blessing) was to Abraham and his single seed. Therefore exactly one seed receives the promise; and because that seed is Christ for Jews (v. 13), that seed is Christ for Gentiles; and they receive the blessing in him.[55]

Verse 14a thus follows from v. 13, and Paul’s argument may be paraphrased as follows: Christ redeemed Jews from the curse of the law in order that the blessing of Abraham might come to Jews in Christ, that is, that the blessing of Abraham might come to both Jews and Gentiles in Christ since Christ is the promised seed of Abraham in whom the blessing resides for both. This summary lacks the shock value of Paul’s wording while retaining the gist of his claim.

3. The Spirit and the Blessing of Abraham

Paul has said enough to show that both Jew and Gentile receive the Abrahamic blessing in Christ (vv. 13–14a, 16) and by faith (vv. 6–9). To confirm that v. 14b—“so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith”—follows from this, it is only necessary to verify that the Spirit is part of the blessing of Abraham.

Most scholars understand the two ἵνα-clauses in v. 14 to be coordinate.[56] But few attempt to explain the connection between the blessing of Abraham in v. 14a and the promise of the Spirit in v. 14b. Hays notes the issue and suggests that Paul sees the narrative about Christ culminating in the sending of the Spirit. By identifying Christ as Abraham’s seed, the one in whom the promise of Abraham is fulfilled, the story itself suggests that the Spirit is the blessing. For Hays, Paul then “assumes an identification between the Spirit and the blessing of Abraham.”[57] But there is more evidence to link the Spirit with the promise to Abraham than assumption.

The OT connects the Spirit and the Abrahamic blessing. Isaiah 32:15–18, for example, associates the outpouring of the Spirit with justice and righteousness, and 44:3–5 with belonging to the Lord. Both righteousness and belonging to the Lord are part of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 15:6; 17:7–8). Ezekiel 36:27–30 links the Spirit of God to the Abrahamic blessings of righteousness (cf. Gen 15:6), abundant harvest (cf. Gen 12:1–2), living in the land of Israel (cf. Gen 15:7, 18–21), and having Yahweh as God (cf. Gen 17:7–8).

Furthermore, in the vision of the dry bones, Ezek 37:1–14 directly links the Spirit of God with life. Verse 12 says that God will open the graves and bring people into the land of Israel. Verse 14 adds that he will place his Spirit within the people, that they will come to life, and that he will set them on their land.[58] Life in Ezekiel comes from the Spirit. Spirit and life are connected in the NT as well (e.g., John 6:63; Rev 11:11), and especially in Paul (e.g., Rom 8:2, 10; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 6:8). Paul does not cite, but would have been aware of, the OT passages cited above. Since human life requires spirit, it is not unreasonable for Paul to expect the Galatians to accept the tie between the Spirit and eschatological life even without appeal to Scripture. The close relationship of the Spirit to life and the interchangeability of life with justification in Gal 3:11–12 then connect the Spirit to justification, which is the foundation of the blessing to Abraham in vv. 6–9. The Spirit gives the life that results from justification.

The Spirit is not the entire content of the blessing of Abraham because the blessing includes land (Gen 12:2), domination over enemies (Gen 22:17), and so forth. The Spirit is part of the Abrahamic blessing because the Spirit is the source of the eschatological life one needs in order to possess the promises (αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι [pl.] in Gal 3:16) forever. In Rom 4:13 Paul acknowledges both physical and spiritual blessings when he says that Abraham and his descendants inherit land—even the entire world—through the righteousness of faith. He does not deny or spiritualize the physical blessings or transform the Abrahamic blessing into God’s work in Christ in Gal 3.[59] Rather, he focuses on one part of the Abrahamic blessing, the Spirit, because the Galatians knew that they had received the Spirit by faith (vv. 1–5); and having the Spirit is proof that they had been justified by faith—had received the Abrahamic promise by faith—as Scripture had said all along (vv. 6–9). The connection between the Spirit and the Abrahamic blessing thus establishes v. 14b.

VI. Conclusion

The conciseness of Paul’s argument in Gal 3:13–14 has made it difficult to follow. The apparently tenuous connections between redemption for Jews in v. 13, the Abrahamic blessing for Gentiles in v. 14a, and the promise of the Spirit in v. 14b has fostered the idea of unproven assertions within the passage. Paul establishes his case, however, by drawing on common ground he shares with the Galatians and substantiating exactly those points on which he and they might differ.

His claim in v. 13 that Christ became a curse in order to redeem Jews derives from agreement with his readers that Christ delivers people from this present evil age in 1:1–4, his argument in 3:1–12, and his quotation from Deut 21:23 that one hanged on a tree is cursed. To conclude then from 3:13 that the Abrahamic blessing is in Christ for Gentiles and that both Jew and Gentile receive the Spirit by faith in v. 14, Paul depends upon three points: (1) the blessing of Abraham is in Christ for Jews, (2) the source of the blessing for Jews is the same as that for Gentiles, and (3) the Spirit is part of the blessing.

In vv. 13–14 Paul concludes the argument he began in v. 1. After writing in vv. 1–5 about the Galatians’ own memory of hearing the gospel and receiving the Spirit, he interprets their experience according to Scripture. In vv. 6–9 he reasons from Genesis that the Abrahamic blessing includes justification, is received by faith, and is available to Gentiles. In vv. 10–12 he deduces from the OT that the law justifies no one but instead curses the people under it. Paul then deals with these three sections in reverse order in vv. 13–14. He brings Christ into the picture in v. 13 to explain that he is the solution to the problem of the curse of the law in vv. 10–12. Two ἵνα-clauses follow in v. 14. The first addresses the promise to Abraham in vv. 6–9 to show how the blessing of Abraham and the curse of the law relate: Christ removed the latter in order to activate the former. The second ἵνα-clause connects the Abrahamic blessing with the reception of the Spirit in vv. 1–5. Paul’s message to the Galatians is that the law could not deliver the Spirit (vv. 1–5), the blessing of Abraham (vv. 6–9), or justification (vv. 10–12). But when they received the Spirit by faith (vv. 1–5, 14b), the Galatians obtained justification—the beginning of the Abrahamic blessing—in Christ.

Notes

1. Gal 3:13–14 falls in the middle of a sustained argument pertinent to the πίστις Χριστοῦ (faith in/of Christ) debate. That debate is beyond the scope of this article, but see Debbie Hunn, “Pistis Christou in Galatians: The Connection to Habakkuk 2:4, ” TynBul 63 (2012): 75–91, for a defense of πίστις Χριστοῦ as an objective genitive in Galatians.
2. This article will support below the idea that v. 13 speaks exclusively of Jews.
3. Biblical quotations are from the NRSV unless stated otherwise.
4. J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33a (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 322.
5. Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 74–82, 102–11.
6. Frank Thielman, From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans, NovTSup 61 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 66–67.
7. Ibid., 72.
8. N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 143, 154. Wright does affirm, however, that both clauses hold for both peoples (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2 vols., Christian Origins and the Question of God 4 [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013], 2:863–64).
9. Wright, Climax of the Covenant, 140–42, 150. Wright adds that some Jews in Paul’s day believed that Israel was still in exile (p. 141). Wright follows Thielman concerning Gal 3:12 (p. 150n44). See Thielman, From Plight to Solution, 70–71.
10. Wright, Climax of the Covenant, 152.
11. Ibid., 151.
12. Ibid., 141, 152.
13. Wright also emphasizes Paul’s “narrative” and says that exile, not the fate of individuals, is a part of it (Faithfulness of God, e.g., 1:146, 164; 2:865). But Paul’s argument must conform to his narrative, not contradict it.
14. E.g., Lev 17:3–4, 8–10, 12, 14–16; 18:6, 29; 19:3, 8, 20–22; and Deut 27:15–26. Thielman, although he also finds Paul to believe that exile had fallen upon Israel, applies Gal 3:10–14 to individuals (From Plight to Solution, 68, 71–72).
15. Wright finds the curse of exile in Paul’s argument in vv. 10–14 obvious and suggests that that is the reason Paul does not spell it out (Climax of the Covenant, 147).
16. The OT first speaks of Israel going into exile under Hoshea (2 Kgs 17:6–18, 23), which differed from their being under tribute to Assyria (v. 3). Jerusalem first went into exile in Jehoiachin’s reign (2 Kgs 24:14–15).
17. With Wright, Terence L. Donaldson sees Torah concentrating the sin of humankind in Israel (Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997], 245). Donaldson, however, imports the idea of a Jewish Christian remnant from Rom 11:1–5 into Gal 3:13–14 to say that the sin of humankind was further concentrated in this remnant, that the remnant thus represents the world, and that Christ represents the remnant (p. 180). The Jewish Christian remnant is the means by which the Gentiles receive the benefits from the redemption of v. 13 (p. 245). His view, in its similarity to Wright’s, is subject to similar criticisms: Paul says nothing about Gentile sin being imputed to Israel and nothing about a Jewish remnant in Galatians.
18. Moisés Mayordomo, Argumentiert Paulus logisch? Eine Analyse vor dem Hintergrund antiker Logik, WUNT 2/188 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 128–66.
19. Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law, WUNT 29 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1983), 14. John M. G. Barclay asks “what standards of theological logic it is right to expect from Paul’s writings” and cautions against holding high expectations (“Paul and the Law: Observations on Some Recent Debates,” Them 12 [1986]: 10).
20. Sean P. Kealy, review of Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus, by Jan Lambrecht, CBQ 45 (1983): 145.
21. Clark H. Pinnock, The Grace of God and the Will of Man (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1989; repr., Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995), 21.
22. Ernest DeWitt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921), 186; Martyn, Galatians, 365–66.
23. Moisés Silva, “Abraham, Faith, and Works: Paul’s Use of Scripture in Galatians 3:6–14, ” WTJ 63 (2001): 262.
24. D. A. Carson, “Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: The Possibility of Systematic Theology,” in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 80 (italics original).
25. In the Hellenistic period (323–31 BC), the Stoics took the forefront in logic (R. Smith, “Aristotle’s Logic,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. N. Zalta, Spring 2000 ed., https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2000/entries/aristotle-logic/ [accessed 7 June 2014]).
26. See Edward P. J. Corbett and Robert J. Connors, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 495–96, for Quintilian’s influence. See George A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric & Its Christian & Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 116, for Quintilian’s reliance on the Greeks.
27. E.g., in Inst. 5.14.7–9 Quintilian borrows an epicheireme from Cicero and notes which parts may require proof. (The syllogism and the epicheireme differ only in that a syllogism deduces a true conclusion from true premises, but the epicheireme often includes statements that may simply be credible [Inst. 5.14.14].) Quintilian follows it in Inst. 5.14.10 with another example of an epicheireme and notes that omitting the first five words leaves a syllogism in standard form. He speaks also of the enthymeme, which he describes as an incomplete syllogism in that it omits a premise or the conclusion (Inst. 5.14.1). He considers, e.g., a particular syllogism in Inst. 5.14.26 and advises the orator to reduce the argument to an enthymeme.
28. Duane Litfin, St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 1–4 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 124.
29. Craig A. Evans, “Paul and the Pagans,” in Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Pauline Studies 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 118–26 (quotation on p. 118). See also Carl Joachim Classen, Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament (Boston: Brill Academic, 2002), 30–34; Nils A. Dahl, “Paul’s Letter to the Galatians: Epistolary Genre, Content and Structure,” in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 117–42.
30. James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 175–76; James D. G. Dunn, “The New Perspective: Whence, What and Whither?,” in The New Perspective on Paul, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 14.
31. For Wakefield’s view, see Andrew Hollis Wakefield, Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul’s Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3:1–14, AcBib 14 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 173, 179–80 (quotation on p. 173).
32. BDAG, s.v. ζάω 1, 3; BDB, s.v. חיה; HALOT חיה.
33. I have defended this view at greater length in Debbie Hunn, “Habakkuk 2.4b in Its Context: How Far Off Was Paul?,” JSOT 34 (2009): 228–32. See also Preston M. Sprinkle, Law and Life: The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and in Paul, WUNT 2/241 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
34. Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 82; Wright, Climax of the Covenant, 143; John W. Taylor, “The Eschatological Interdependence of Jews and Gentiles in Galatians,” TynBul 63 (2012): 305. For “us” as Jews, see also Burton, Galatians, 169; Jan Lambrecht, “Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians and Its Relevance for Today,” in The Truth of the Gospel: (Galatians 1:1–4:11), ed. Jan Lambrecht, Benedictina 12 (Rome: Benedictina, 1993), 244; Frank J. Matera, Galatians, SP 9 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2007), 120; David Ian Starling, Not My People: Gentiles as Exiles in Pauline Hermeneutics, BZNW 184 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 51. Burton goes too far, however, when he says that the “primary effect [of Christ on the cross] is in relation to the Jews”—that is simply the emphasis in this part of Paul’s argument (Galatians, 169).
35. Scholars who see both Jews and Gentiles in “us” include Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, KEK 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 136–37; Albrecht Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, THKNT 9 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1984), 107; Franz Mußner, Der Galaterbrief: Auslegung, HThKNT 9 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1988), 234–35; Dunn, Galatians, 176; Martyn, Galatians, 317; Jeffrey R. Wisdom, Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law: Paul’s Citation of Genesis and Deuteronomy in Gal 3.8–10, WUNT 2/133 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 191; Peter Chidolue Onwuka, The Law, Redemption and Freedom in Christ: An Exegetical-Theological Study of Galatians 3, 10–14 and Romans 7, 1–6, Tesi Gregoriana, Serie Teologia 156 (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 2007), 96.
36. Scholars debate the precise meaning of works of the law. See Dunn and Matera for the view that works of the law are primarily the requirements of the law, such as circumcision and food restrictions, that distinguish Jew from Gentile (James D. G. Dunn, “Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law [Galatians 3.10–14],” in New Perspective on Paul, 135; Matera, Galatians, 118). For a refutation of this view, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 338; Starling, Not My People, 49; Martinus C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 145–48.
37. Quintilian regards as certainties (i.e., facts that can be assumed in an argument) concepts that are undisputed by one’s adversary (Inst. 5.10.12–13).
38. Donald W. B. Robinson, “The Distinction between Jewish and Gentile Believers in Galatians,” ABR 13 (1965): 34; Dunn, Galatians, 179; Martyn, Galatians, 323; Wisdom, Blessing for the Nations, 191, 198; and Matera, Galatians, 120, understand “we” to include both Jew and Gentile in v. 14.
39. Taylor, “Interdependence of Jews and Gentiles,” 294, 305.
40. For examples of texts with abrupt changes in antecedents, see Matt 2:21–23; Rom 3:5, 8, 9; Eph 6:22–24 (in light of 1:3); Col 1:9–14; 1 Thess 4:1–7; 2 Thess 2:1–2; 1 John 1:5–10. See also Judith M. Lieu, “Us or You? Persuasion and Identity in 1 John,” JBL 127 (2008): 814, on the shift in referent of the first person plural in 1 John; and Debbie Hunn, “Who Are ‘They’ in John 8:33?,” CBQ 66 (2004): 395–97, for examples of unannounced pronominal changes elsewhere. This selection of verses indicates that unexpected change in antecedents was widespread.
41. Paul indicates this when he notes in Gal 2:3 that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. In other words, Titus’s liberty, not only that of the apostles, was at stake.
42. I will argue for this under the section “Jewish Redemption and Gentile Blessing” below.
43. E.g., Burton, Galatians, 173; Martyn, Galatians, 320; Matera, Galatians, 120.
44. E.g., Philo, Spec. 3.152. The Gentile Luke also shares this understanding in Acts 5:30; 10:39. See Florentino García Martínez for the idea that crucifixion was practiced in Judea before the Romans and that some Jews used Deut 21 to refer to it (“Galatians 3:10–14 in the Light of Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. Jean-Sébastien Rey, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 102 [Leiden: Brill, 2014], 58–59).
45. Daniel R. Streett, “Cursed by God? Galatians 3:13, Social Status, and Atonement Theory in the Context of Early Jewish Readings of Deuteronomy 21:23, ” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 5 (2015): 189.
46. Ibid., 204–5.
47. For indirect comments, see Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 152; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 164; de Boer, Galatians, 213. For scholars who deal directly with the issue, see Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 228, 232–33; Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, SNTSMS 74 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 246; Onwuka, Law, Redemption and Freedom in Christ, 102–3.
48. Paul’s argument in Gal 3:13–14 would work just as well whether Deut 21:23 renders or merely reveals the fact of the curse. If Deut 21:23 omits the cause of the curse, however, how was Christ cursed? The explanation may be as simple as the direct action of God: “and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:6).
49. Francis Watson sees Paul’s argument proceeding both deductively on the basis of Scripture and inductively on the basis of the reality of what Christ accomplished so that it goes beyond the OT texts he cites (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016], 174–75). However, although Paul came to see Scripture fulfilled in Christ, he must still offer the Galatians sufficient corroborating evidence for his position.
50. See Debbie Hunn, “Pleasing God or Pleasing People: Defending the Gospel in Galatians 1–2, ” Bib 91 (2010): 25–26.
51. David A. Brondos points out that the text speaks of Jesus giving up his life and that “to give up one’s life is not merely to die, but to die for the sake of some cause, or for the benefit of someone” (“The Cross and the Curse: Galatians 3.13 and Paul’s Doctrine of Redemption,” JSNT 81 [2001]: 18–25).
52. If God simply dismissed the curse without exacting a penalty, then coming under the curse of the law would have little meaning.
53. Scholars who understand Gal 3:13 in terms of substitutionary atonement include Hans Joachim Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, trans. Harold Knight (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 134–36; Bruce, Galatians, 166; Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 150, 150n68; Martyn, Galatians, 318n110. Scholars who argue against substitutionary atonement include Morna D. Hooker, “Interchange in Christ,” JTS 22 (1971): 358; de Boer, Galatians, 211–12. For a variety of views, see James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006); and Derek Tidball, David Hilborn, and Justin Thacker, eds., The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium on the Theology of Atonement (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008).
54. Paul explicitly includes Jews among people blessed in Abraham in vv. 16, 25–29.
55. Elsewhere Paul looks beyond redemption from the curse of the law to redemption from the curse of death on creation in Gen 2:16–17; 3:17–19, which precedes the law, applies to both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 5:12), and which Christ overcame (Rom 8:19–22; 1 Cor 15:51–57). In light of Gal 3:13 it is hardly a leap to understand Paul’s portrayal of Christ’s death for sins in 1 Cor 15:3 to mean that Christ bore the penalty for them. For Paul, presumably, at the time that Christ bore the curse of the law, he also bore every other curse God laid upon humankind for sin. When the curse of death is removed in Christ, life is the only other option.
56. E.g., Burton, Galatians, 176; Oepke, Galater, 109; Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC 41 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 123; Martyn, Galatians, 321; Matera, Galatians, 120. Contra Taylor, “Interdependence of Jews and Gentiles,” 298–303; and Ardel B. Caneday, “‘Redeemed from the Curse of the Law’: The Use of Deut 21:22–23 in Gal 3:13, ” TJ ns 10 (1989): 205.
57. Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 183.
58. By referring to the land, Ezek 37:12 and 14 tie vv. 1–14 to the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Gen 15).
59. Contra Claus Westermann, Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church, OBT (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 77; Schlier, Galater, 141; Dunn, Galatians, 186. See Chee-Chiew Lee, “The Blessing of Abraham and the Promise of the Spirit: The Influence of the Prophets on Paul in Galatians 3:1–14” (PhD diss., Wheaton College, 2009), for additional arguments against equating the blessing of Abraham and the promise of the Spirit in Galatians. She and I differ in that I see the Spirit as the means of acquiring eternal life, and she sees the Spirit working in the believer to maintain the status of justification and guarantee future justification (Lee, “Blessing of Abraham,” 317, 325).