Michael H. Burer, Galatians (EEC)

Burer, Michael H. Galatians. Evangelical Exegetical Commentary. Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2024. xxii+575 pp.; Hb.; $69.99. Link to Lexham Press

Michael H. Burer serves as dean of faculty development and professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He previously published A New Reader’s Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (with Jeffrey E. Miller; Kregel Academic, 2012) and Divine Sabbath Work (Eisenbrauns, 2012). He was an editor and assistant project director for the NET Bible and edited John Glynn’s Best Bible Books (Kregel 2018, reviewed here). This new addition to the Evangelical Exegetical commentary joins recent Galatians commentaries by David deSilva (Eerdmans, 2018, reviewed here) and Craig Keener (Baker Academic, 2019).

The commentary begins with a twenty-one-page introduction. This seems brief, especially considering this includes an outline of the book and major commentaries. For comparison, Keener’s introduction is forty-five pages, and deSilva’s is one hundred-eight. The rest of the book is about the same length as these recent major commentaries. There is little doubt that Paul is the original author, and this news is never seriously challenged. Unlike authorship, there is more controversy concerning the recipients, date, and relationship to the Book of Acts. After surveying the options, he concludes that Acts 11:27-30 is the meeting described in Galatians 2:1-10. (See this post for my views on Galatians and Acts.)This meeting sets in motion the tensions that culminated in the Jerusalem conference. In the book of Galatians, these tensions are not yet settled. Burer prefers the South Galatians theory, so Galatians is written on the eve of the Jerusalem Council, approximately A.D. 49. The recipients are the churches Paul established on his first missionary journey, the city and Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Debre. “the bubbling tension surrounding full gentile inclusion in the people of God on no bases other than faith forces Paul to write these churches to clarify what he preached to them before and it’s outworking in their relationships” (9).

Burer argues the opponents are Jewish Christians who visited Paul’s churches to correct his claim that Gentiles were saved by faith. Instead, they insisted Gentiles must join the people of God, starting with circumcision as a sign of obedience to the Mosaic Law. Who were these opponents? Paul does not identify them by name, nor does he systematically detail their preaching. After serving all the references in Galatians, Burer concludes that Paul thinks the opponents are “hypocritical charlatans” with self-serving motives (13). They want to avoid persecution because of the cross. Older commentaries call the opponents “Judaizers,” but for Burer, this is too simplistic, as if they want to convert Gentiles to Judaism. The opponents are within the social circles of Jewish Christianity. For Burer, they may not be Christians, based on Paul’s strong condemnation (calling them false brothers, etc.). He does point out that the false brothers in Jerusalem may not be the same as the opponents in Galatians, but they share the same theology. They used their association with James to sneak into meetings in Jerusalem. He stops short of connecting the opponents with James, the Lord’s Brother, or the Jerusalem church. After all, Jerusalem acknowledged Paul’s gospel and did not require Titus to be circumcised (Gal 2:1-10, p. 103).

He briefly comments on the relationship between Galatians and Romans. Since Paul wrote Galatians first to address a specific situation, it is better to interpret the later work (Romans) in the light of the former (Galatians). He recognizes there are clear connections and several nuanced differences. In the commentary, he attempts to bracket out his understanding of Romans as much as possible to focus on the text of Galatians. For example, commenting on Galatians 2:15–21, he recognizes that there are clear parallels with Romans, but he does not investigate those parallels to interpret Galatians (170).

The introduction concludes with an exegetical and theological overview. “What has impressed me throughout the writing of this commentary is the intensely pastoral nature of Paul’s interaction with the Galatian congregations (16). The book is personal and practical for the original readers. There are real-world effects on the lives of the people in Galatia if they accept the teachings of the opponents. Certainly, this includes the unity of the church but also physical changes in their bodies (circumcision). “Galatians is in no way a dispassionate discourse on disconnected theological issues” (17). The book is an exegetical, theological defense of Paul’s gospel.

Each unit of the commentary begins with textual notes. He treats major textual variants, perhaps in more detail than usual in most commentaries. This is followed by the author’s English translation and commentary on the Greek text. Greek appears without transliteration. He moves through the text, commenting on words and phrases. He uses extensive footnotes to interact with secondary literature, although major commentaries are cited in-text. Footnotes often point to lexical and syntactical resources. Following his detailed commentary is a brief section of theological comments. Here, Burer often comments on the implications of his exegesis and how contemporary New Testament scholars work with the text. This is followed by a section entitled Application and Devotional Implications. Although this is not a homiletical or devotional commentary, he does try to draw appropriate applications to contemporary church life. Each section is concluded by additional comments, often commenting on an academic article on a finer point in the text. The section concludes with a selected bibliography for that prey. However, not all the key literature in the section is included in this bibliography. For example, in Galatians 2:11-14, he includes Cohn-Sherbok’s article responding to James Dunn but not Dunn’s article (which is cited in the chapter).

As expected in a Galatians commentary, Burer engages with the New Perspective on Paul where appropriate in the commentary. This is especially true for Galatians 2:15–21, something of ground zero for the New Perspective. In fact, this section has several lengthy excurses. The first is on Paul’s use of Psalm 143:2. Second, Burer examines Paul’s use of δικ- word group in Galatians, emphasizing how the New Perspective on Paul has changed contemporary scholarship thinking about this important word. Here, he comments on both James Dunn and N. T. Wright. In a potential understatement, Burer suggests that “the extent and depth of rights argument defies simple summary” (208). Paul used the δικ- word group because he was interested in an individual’s legal status before God (the old perspective), and he was also interested in much more: a community delineated by faith in the Messiah (the new perspective) (208). Although this sounds like he is trying to have his theological cake and eat it too, Burer more regularly sides with the traditional view of Paul against the New Perspective. But this is far from a polemic. His comments often seek to find the best of both views.

The third excurses in this section deals with Paul’s use of the πίστ- word group in Galatians. Fourth, he treats Paul’s use of the phrase “works of the Law.” The New Perspective argues that Paul does not have in mind the entire Mosaic Law, but only the “boundary markers” (circumcision, food, laws, sabbath). Burer concludes that Paul uses the phrase for the whole Torah (the traditional view). Fifth, Burer deals with the difficult exegetical problem in Galatians 2:16, διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (usually reduced to πίστις Χριστοῦ, pistis Christou). Briefly, did Paul intend the genitive case (Christou) to refer to the faithful act of Jesus Christ on the cross (subjective genitive) or to Jesus as the object of one’s faith (objective genitive)? (See this post commenting on the phrase in Romans 3:21-26.) This is an extremely troublesome topic, which is generated many articles and at least one lengthy monograph, The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Hendrickson, 2010; edited by Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle). Burer lists briefly eighteen points in favor of the objective genitive and fifteen points in favor of the subjective genitive. He concludes that the phrase refers to “Faith directed at Christ,” the traditional view (220). In his view, Paul refers to humanity’s responsive faith directed toward Christ alone as the basis for a declaration of justification.

Conclusion. Michael Burer has made an excellent contribution to the study of Galatians. This commentary stands alongside other recent major commentaries from Keener and deSilva.

Bonus: Read an interview with Burer and Garrett on the Lexham Press blog.

Review of other commentaries in this series:

• JoAnna M. Hoyt, Amos, Jonah, Micah
• Mark J. Keown, Philippians

NB: Thanks to Lexham Press for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book, both in print and Logos format. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.