“… my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!”
Context is key to discovering the intended meaning of almost every word and phrase in the Bible. Following a writer’s thought flow and keeping in mind where we are in his overall argument invariably gives us a better sense of what he is trying to say then simply looking up the definitions of the Greek or Hebrew words he used.
Sometimes, however, the immediate context of a statement doesn’t help you much at all.
When Context Doesn’t Work
I came across this problem many times when trying to interpret Hebrew proverbs. Usually, these are only a couple of lines long, and one proverb has little or nothing to do with the previous proverb or the one after it. In cases like these, immediate context is useless. The same is true of some asides or digressions the New Testament writers make from time to time. These are not part of the overall thought flow of the passage, and the help we are able to get in understanding their meaning from what came right before and comes right after them is severely limited, especially when they are expressions unique to a single writer on a single occasion. No immediate context, and little or nothing else with which to compare them.
What did Paul mean by the phrase “until Christ is formed in you”?
Diverse Interpretations
I don’t usually go straight to the commentators, but in this case I’m not so much looking for them to provide the answer as I am interested in pointing out the variety of interpretations a phrase like this can produce, even in educated religious minds.
1/ “Formed” as Maturity
Ellicott takes the expression individually, the “formation” in question being Christian maturity:
“Just as the formless embryo by degrees takes the shape of man, so the unformed Christian by degrees takes the likeness of Christ. As he grows in grace that likeness becomes more and more defined, till at last the Christian reaches the ‘stature of the fulness of Christ’ (Ephesians 4:13).”
It’s certainly true that each believer becomes more Christ-like as he matures in his faith. But is that what’s on Paul’s mind here?
2/ “Formed” as Salvation
Matthew Henry also believes Paul was talking about individuals, but with respect to salvation rather than growing in grace as a believer:
“Nothing is so sure a proof that a sinner has passed into a state of justification, as Christ being formed in him by the renewal of the Holy Spirit; but this cannot be hoped for, while men depend on the law for acceptance with God.”
So then, was Paul questioning whether the disciples in Galatia were actually saved? You could probably make that argument from a few of his statements to them in Galatians, things like “If you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.” Maybe.
John Gill says something similar. I remain unconvinced.
3/ Formed and Reformed?
Here’s where the real trouble starts. This entry in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges makes me nervous about their theology:
“The indwelling of Christ in the believer’s soul is the principle of his new life. To restore this after a relapse is a task of deep anxiety to the Apostle.”
Wait, what? How does one “restore” the indwelling of Christ? The sounds suspiciously like the suggestion that one can be saved, lost, then potentially saved again, a doctrine the New Testament repudiates. Could Christ really be “formed” in a person, then “unformed”, then “reformed”? Surely not.
Examining the Greek
Before we start going down any of these somewhat
questionable roads, maybe it’s worth
Formed is morphoō, used this way only once in the entire New Testament. It comes from morphē, which may refer to either external appearance (as in Mark 16:12) or intrinsic substance (as in Philippians 2:6).
In is en, a very common Greek preposition that often means “inside”, as we might expect, but also not infrequently means “among”. Translators go with the latter 117 times in the NT.
You is hymin, a plural possessive pronoun. So Paul could mean “you” as a number of individuals, or “you” as a group, corporately. Either is possible.
That gives us options beyond those explored by the popular commentaries.
Numbers and Probabilities
Paul wrote to “the churches of Galatia”, as he says in his introduction. Galatia was a region, not a city. It included the cities of Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, all mentioned in the book of Acts. In Iconium alone, Luke writes, “a great number of Jews and Greeks believed”. So Paul was not merely concerned for a few struggling converts in one local church. False doctrine had spread through an entire region where he had worked and was gaining influence there.
Considering the numbers involved, the “different gospel” others preached in Galatia after Paul had departed the region had undoubtedly produced a variety of results. Some of Paul’s converts, no doubt, stayed rock solid in their faith, confident salvation came exclusively through trusting in the finished work of Christ. Others were at the point of accepting the ritual of circumcision as a requirement for salvation. Still others were confused and doubtful and had yet to fully make up their minds. Perhaps, as in the story Paul tells about Peter in Galatians, some were intimidated by peer pressure into accepting a Judaized approach to the gospel of which they themselves were not convinced.
Paul had to address these churches as a whole, not as individuals. Sufficient numbers had been knocked off their pins by the Judaization of the gospel that the orthodoxy and testimony of the entire group was threatened.
Another Possibility
Paul was certainly concerned about individuals he knew in Galatia. Nevertheless, given the numbers to whom he wrote, it seems unlikely Paul entertained the possibility that none of the disciples in Galatia was actually regenerate. I think we can probably discard the Henry/Gill interpretation of “Christ is formed in you” for that reason.
Nor is it theologically conceivable, considering Paul’s teaching elsewhere, that he was saying that some had been saved and were now at risk of being lost. We can rule that interpretation right out.
No doubt, Paul was concerned about the eventual maturity of specific individuals he knew and had worked with. He wanted all to understand the full implications of the gospel he had preached and to apply the principles he taught. But I don’t know that is what he had in view here. We should consider another possibility.
Visible Among You
The testimony of one Christian or another is very important at an individual level. On any given day, somebody’s salvation may well depend on it. But the importance of a faithful testimony of the Christian church to the truth of the gospel throughout an entire region is on another level entirely. Lose that because of false doctrine and the faith itself comes into disrepute. That’s what I believe Paul was most concerned about. His concern was primarily corporate, not individual. That’s not because the testimony of individuals doesn’t matter, but because corporate testimony matters more; its impact is broader and more far-reaching.
If “formed” in this case refers to external appearance, and if “in” means “among”, as it often does, then Paul may actually be saying something like this: “I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is revealed to the world through your gatherings! That cannot happen if you return to the Law of Moses. Christ is what your neighbors and friends need to see and come to know, not just another sad version of Judaism.” If salvation by grace through faith did not remain the standard by which the Galatians were saved, and if their churches embraced legalism, the work of the gospel in that part of the world would be entirely compromised. That seems an issue well worth agonizing over if you had invested your own life in those of these folks.
I wouldn’t go to the wall for that interpretation, but it seems to me a much better fit than any of the Big Three offered in the easy-to-access online commentaries.
No comments :
Post a Comment