[note: the Greek words used in this paper have not yet been properly transliterated, but the points being made should be clear nonetheless.]

As people throughout this land carry the message of EE from door to door, they preface their presentation of the gospel by asking "the two EE questions." The first of these is designed to determine if the one being visited believes himself to be in a right relationship with God -- "Have you come to the place in your spiritual life where you know for certain that if you were to die today that you would go to heaven?" The second question is used to ascertain the individual's understanding of God's requirement for entering into heaven -- "Suppose you were to die today and you stood before God, and He were to ask you, ‘Why should I let you into my heaven?' What would you say?"¹ The ideal EE answer to this question according to Kennedy is "I am trusting in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life."

If the individual answers the second EE question ideally, assuming he also answered the first question in the affirmative, it is reasonably assumed that he is a true Christian. However, if this person, answering the first question affirmatively, answers the second question by somehow appealing to his own good deeds -- "I have been good," "I kept the Ten Commandments," "I never hurt anyone," etc. -- then it is determined that this individual has misunderstood the gospel and is probably not a genuine believer. Such an approach to presenting the gospel is typical of Evangelicalism today.

Though Kennedy is to be commended for his passionate outreach to the lost, this EE approach raises a serious theological question -- what is the requirement for entrance into heaven, i.e., eschatological life? What will God be looking for at the final judgment? This is precisely the issue being raised by Kennedy's second EE question -- "Why should I let you into my heaven?" Is the entry requirement faith in what Christ alone has done, or is it the good deeds that we ourselves have done? Though Kennedy suggests the former -- "I am trusting in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life" (ideal answer to second EE question) -- many passages throughout Scripture seem to suggest instead that the entry requirement at the judgment will be the good deeds done in our lives.

Noting a couple of the more well-known passages will suffice to illustrate this apparent theological difficulty. In Matthew 25:31-46, we are presented with the famous Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. In this parable, Jesus tells of the day when the Son of Man will separate the sheep from the goats. Then he will invite the sheep on his right to take their inheritance of the kingdom "because [ga,r]² I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me" (Mt 25:35-36). He will then tell the goats on his left to depart from him into the eternal fire "because [ga,r] I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me" (Mt 25:42-43). In this parable, it seems that Jesus exhorts his audience to live lives of faithful service to their brothers, motivating them by pointing out that how they live in this life will determine their eternal destiny.

Likewise, Paul states the following in Romans 2: "God will give to each person according to his deeds [kata. ta. e;rga auvtou/]. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism" (Rom 2:6-11). Here again we find a passage that appears to teach that our deeds are the criteria by which God will determine who receives eternal life at the final judgment.

Once the theological difficulty in this matter has been identified (as has now been done), it is then necessary to more deeply investigate such "judgment by deeds" texts to determine whether they are actually teaching that our good deeds obtain for us entrance into eschatological life. It is impossible, however, to do exegetical justice to all of the relevant Biblical passages within the space of this paper. Considering Paul's words in his letter to the Galatians, however, is a good place to start. In this paper, I will argue that in Galatians Paul does indeed teach that how one lives in this life determines where he will spend eternity and will suggest how this doctrine fits within the whole of Paul's soteriology in Galatians.

Though Galatians is known as the letter in which Paul most vehemently defends his doctrine of justification by faith, we must not be misled into thinking that justification by faith is the only doctrine Paul is concerned about in Galatians. On the contrary, Paul seems just as fervent in his presentation of a judgment to come which will be according to deeds. This doctrine of judgment according to deeds is seen most clearly in the following two Galatian passages:

The works of the flesh are clear: sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:19-21)

Stop being deceived: God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, that also will he reap. He who sows to his flesh will from the flesh reap destruction, and he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not lose heart. (Gal 6:7-9)

Paul's focus on judgment according to deeds is seen once again in Gal 5:21, where his warning that those who practice ta. e;rga th/j sarko,j will not inherit the kingdom of God⁴ finds itself at the heart of a highly sophisticated chiasm:

  A) biting and devouring one another (15)
    B) walk [peripate,w] in the Spirit (16a)
      C) you will not carry out the lust of the flesh (16b)
        D) you are not under law (18)
          E) identifying the works of the flesh (19-21a)
            F) warning against practicing the works of the flesh (21b)
          E') identifying the fruit of the Spirit (22-23a)
        D') against such things there is no law (23b)
      C') crucified the flesh with the passions and lusts (24)
    B') walk [stoice,w] in the Spirit (25)
  A') provoking and envying one another (26)

Given Paul's heavy emphasis on the final judgment in relation to how one lives his life, the question of the precise nature of the relationship between judgment and deeds must be addressed. There are basically two positions among scholars -- the evidential view and the instrumental view.⁵ According to the evidential view, the typical view of Evangelicalism, good deeds are not necessary in and of themselves for the reception of eschatological life but rather serve to verify (or give evidence to) one's belief in Christ, which is needed for eschatological life. The instrumental view, on the other hand, states that good deeds are indeed required, not as evidence of a prerequisite faith in Christ, but as a prerequisite in and of themselves, as the "instrument" through which eschatological life is obtained.

Another way of distinguishing these two views is by using the language of logical and causal relationships. The following represents the evidential and instrumental views:

Let A = faith
Let B = good deeds
Let C = eschatological life

> indicates a logical relationship
>> indicates a causal relationship⁶

Evidential View:
    A >> B (faith causes good deeds)
    A >> C (faith causes eschatological life)
    thus, B > C (if good deeds, then eschatological life)⁷

Instrumental View:
    A >> B (faith causes good deeds)
    B >> C (good deeds cause eschatological life)⁸

It would seem that in Gal 5:21 and Gal 6:7-9 Paul is suggesting an instrumental view of deeds and judgment. This is perhaps a bit less certain in Gal 5:21, where Paul states: "Those who practice such things [the works of the flesh] will not inherit the kingdom of God." Why this is so is not explicitly answered. It could be that practicing the works of the flesh gives evidence to their lack of faith in Christ, and that lack of faith excludes them from the kingdom, or that such fleshly practice itself serves as the determinative factor in their being barred from inheriting the kingdom of God.

Having said this, it seems that if one accepts the premise that practicing the deeds of the flesh excludes one from the eschatological kingdom of God (which, though not completely provable, appears to be the prima facie reading of the text), one must likewise concede that living in conformity with the Spirit (Gal 5:25, pneu,mati stoicw/men) becomes prerequisite for entrance into that kingdom. F. F. Bruce seems to overlook this point as he makes reference to Gal 5:21 by saying, "while good deeds in themselves do not admit one to the kingdom, evil deeds of the type mentioned certainly exclude one."⁹ Bruce fails to make the logical observation that saying evil deeds exclude one from the kingdom makes the avoidance of those deeds an entry requirement. And since Galatians presents us with only two "ways of life," as there are only two suprahuman powers which govern human life¹⁰ -- the flesh and the Spirit -- then the avoidance of practicing the deeds of the flesh becomes equivalent to living in conformity with the Spirit. Thus, living in conformity with the Spirit becomes an entry requirement to the eschatological kingdom of God.

Though Gal 5:21 does not absolutely demonstrate that good deeds are prerequisite for eschatological life, Gal 6:7-9 is more conclusive. Gal 6:7-8 states: "Whatever a man sows, that also will he reap. He who sows to his flesh will from the flesh reap destruction, and he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life." The imagery in this passage is one of a farmer sowing his seed and reaping the resulting harvest. While Gal 6:7 refers to the kind of seed sown (o] eva.n spei,rh|), Gal 6:8 refers to the nature of the ground in which the seed is cast, as in the Parable of the Sower.¹¹ Paul's dual imagery ought not be surprising, for J. B. Lightfoot points out that in moral husbandry sowers often choose different seeds, as they also choose different soils, and the nature of the harvest depends on the nature of the seed or soil itself.¹²

This Law of Sowing and Reaping in Gal 6:7-9 is at the heart of the instrumentalist position that deeds determine destiny in Galatians. Both evidentialists and instrumentalists agree that one's deeds go together with his eternal destiny. But only the instrumentalist would say that these deeds actually cause the particular destiny. Yet this is precisely what the Law of Sowing and Reaping as presented by Paul requires. Lehman Strauss captures well the essence of Paul's words in Gal 6:7 when he says "A man is a fool who thinks that he can break God's laws and escape the consequences. When a man plants wheat he expects to harvest a crop of wheat, simply because like begets like. And yet a man breaks God's laws and expects to escape the results. It can never be!"¹³ Strauss here points out the causal relationship between sowing and reaping. That which is sown and that which is reaped do not merely co-exist. The latter is determined by the nature of the former itself. Herman Ridderbos refers to that "natural, intimate relationship" between the sowing of what we do in this life and the reaping of the judgment to come. He goes on to say that "precisely the way in which man hears the gospel and the way in which in his practical life he deals with it is determinative of his eternal fortune."¹⁴ Leon Morris is so blunt as to say "to get the harvest we want we must sow the right seeds."¹⁵

It is clear that in Gal 6:7-8 Paul is espousing a causal relationship between what is sown and what is reaped. So clear is this fact that even evidentialist scholars virtually never challenge it. Zane Hodges, himself an evidentialist, states "If Galatians 6:8 is construed as speaking only of a man's final salvation from hell, then it teaches clearly that this final salvation is by works! Not to admit this is not to be candid."¹⁶ Here Hodges suggests that if "reaping" is taken to refer to eternal destinies (which he denies) then deeds are certainly required for eschatological life, for he acknowledges that what is sown sits in a clearly causal relationship with what is reaped.

Instead of challenging the causal nature of the relationship itself, evidentialists attempt to reformulate the nature of the things being related (as seen with Hodges above). What is it that is being sown in Gal 6:7-9? What is being reaped? Though evidentialists and instrumentalists disagree over the nature of the two harvests in this passage, there is not much debate concerning what is meant by the sowing, whether it be to the flesh or to the Spirit. Put simply, "sowing to the Spirit" here means "doing good." This is clear from Gal 6:9: "Let us not become weary in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not lose heart." Paul had just shown from Gal 6:7-8 that sowing to the Spirit leads to the reaping of eternal life. Now in the very next verse, practically in the same breath, he claims that the doing of good leads to that same harvest. Thus it is only reasonable to conclude that, in this passage, to sow to the Spirit is equivalent to the doing of good. Likewise, it is generally accepted among scholars that "sowing to the flesh" here refers to the practicing of those works of the flesh listed in Gal 5:19-21.¹⁷

The point at which evidentialists attack the instrumentalist position is at the nature of the harvest itself, i.e., the meaning of "destruction" and "eternal life." John Stott, while acknowledging that "the harvest we reap depends on where and on what we sow,"¹⁸ contends that this reaping of "eternal life" refers not to entrance into eschatological life on the last day but to "a process of moral and spiritual growth" here and now.¹⁹ If this is the case, then our instrumental argument from Gal 6:7-8 falls apart. It seems evident, however, that the future is clearly in view in this passage, referring to "a coming assessment ... before the tribunal of Christ."²⁰ Paul's point in his solemn phrase qeo.j ouv mukthri,zetai ("God is not mocked") is that one ought not think that he can sow to the flesh and then reap eternal life on the last day, and so mock the justice of God.²¹

Our case is strengthened by what follows in Gal 6:9, where Paul states: "Let us not become weary in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not lose heart" (Gal 6:9). The phrase kairw/| ivdi,w| ("in due time") indicates that the reaping Paul has in mind had not yet occurred for the Galatians. And since the reaping is dependent upon their "not losing heart" (which Paul intends to be a life long process) it appears that this reaping would not occur until the Galatians had "finished the race" (Gal 5:7). Thus, what is reaped as a consequence of "doing good" (i.e., sowing to the Spirit) is not present moral growth as Stott maintains, but entrance into eschatological life on the last day.²²

On the flip side, some have tried to argue that when Paul states that the one who "sows to his flesh" (i.e., practices the works of the flesh) will reap "destruction," he is referring to something other than eternal damnation. John MacArthur, for example, states that "although his trust in Christ saves him from spiritual death [i.e., eternal condemnation], a sinning believer can nevertheless reap destruction, suffering physical death and many other tragic earthly consequences."²³ In saying this MacArthur is suggesting that spiritual death and destruction are mutually exclusive categories. Though destruction [fqora,] may be understood in various ways in different passages, in Gal 6:8 it must refer to eternal condemnation, for here it stands antithetically to "eternal life."²⁴ Thus, when Paul suggests that there is an organic, cause-and-effect relationship between "sowing to the flesh" and "reaping destruction," he means that practicing the works of the flesh causes one to reap eternal condemnation. Likewise, when Paul says that "sowing to the Spirit" leads to the "reaping of eternal life," he means that doing good in this life causes one to reap eternal life at the final judgment.

Though the eschatological Law of Sowing and Reaping seems clear from Gal 6:7-9, some suggest that the Christian is exempt from this principle since Christ served as our substitute who himself reaped the judgment that we sowed. Calvin Roetzel sees this as the classical Reformed position.²⁵ MacArthur states in reference to Gal 6:8, "He [the believer] will never reap the consequences of sin, which are death and judgment, because his Lord already reaped those consequences for him."²⁶

But the principle submitted by Paul in Gal 6:7-9 is universal. Paul says in vs. 7 "whatever a man [a;nqrwpoj] sows ... will he reap," and in vs. 8 "he [o`] who sows ... will reap." Paul's use of o` and a;nqrwpoj puts this principle in the broadest possible terms. It applies to all men, not merely to one class of men. When Paul states in Gal 6:7 that "whatever a man sows, that also will he reap," he is merely quoting a widely known prudential maxim found in ancient writers as diverse as Demosthones ("For he that furnished the seed is responsible for what grows") and the prophet Hosea ("They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind," Hos 8:7).²⁷ It seems unlikely that Paul would take a well-known proverb that was clearly applied to men generally and use it to express a principle that applies to a certain group only.

Furthermore, if Paul believed that substitutionary atonement overrides the Law of Sowing and Reaping for the believer, this means that the law would only apply to the unbeliever, who certainly faced destruction. But this is inconsistent with the fact that in his elaboration of the Law of Sowing and Reaping, Paul explains both the path to destruction and the path to eternal life, and then exhorts the Galatian Christians to walk in the latter path so that they may reap the results (Gal 6:9-10). From this it would seem that Paul believes this eschatological principle to remain in force -- for unbeliever and believer alike. Thus, Hans Betz affirms that "the correspondence of ‘sowing' and ‘harvesting' implies that Paul approves of the eschatological law of reciprocity (ius talionis) even for the Galatian ‘pneumatics' [Christians]."²⁸ Henry Shires likewise states in reference to Gal 6:7-8 that "there is one standard for all because God shows no partiality."²⁹

Given that all men are subject to the Law of Sowing and Reaping, one may wonder how many good works it takes for one to reap eternal life. This concern, quite practical as it is, reveals a misunderstanding of Paul's teaching on judgment according to deeds. In Galatians, it is not so much a matter of "how much" as it is a matter of "what kind." Paul states in Gal 5:21 that those who practice "such things" [ta. toiau/ta] will not inherit the kingdom of God. ta. toiau/ta refers not to amount but to category, in this case the kind of deeds described as "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19-21). Likewise, in Gal 6:7-9 we can see that one's eternal destiny depends not on how much one sows but on what kind of seed is sown (or what kind of soil the seed is sown into).

Similarly, it should not be thought that sinless perfection is required at the judgment. Certainly when Paul exhorted the Galatians to "sow to the Spirit" he was not suggesting that they could become sinless. Rather he encourages them "not to become weary in doing good," for then they will reap "if they do not lose heart" (Gal 6:9). This seems to speak of faithfulness rather than sinlessness. This is confirmed by Gal 5:21, which states that those who will be barred from the eschatological kingdom of God are those, not who sin one time, but who practice [pra,ssontej] the deeds of the flesh. And the alternative to practicing the deeds of the flesh is "living in conformity" [stoice,w] with the Spirit (Gal 5:25), the faithfulness which grants one entrance into that eschatological kingdom.

Now that we have argued from Gal 5:19-21 and Gal 6:7-9 that Paul is teaching that how one lives determines his eternal destiny, we must now show how this instrumentalist doctrine of judgment according to deeds fits within the whole of Paul's soteriology as found in Galatians. Certainly the driving force behind the evidentialist's objection to such an understanding of judgment according to deeds is Paul's unrelenting defense of justification by faith: "A man is not justified [dikaio,w] by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ" (Gal 2:16). Again Paul says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness [dikaiosu,nh]" (Gal 3:6).³⁰ Given that Paul sees righteousness as that which brings life,³¹ one should rightly wonder how it could be that Paul on the one hand suggests that life comes through good deeds and on the other hand defends the notion that the righteousness that grants that same life comes by faith.

John Barclay suggests that this tension is relieved when one realizes that by e;rgwn no,mou ("works of law") Paul is not referring to "self-achieved salvation" (Lutheran view) but to obedience to the Mosaic law (new perspective). Barclay states that the desire to see Paul as arguing against self-achieved salvation has "led to many embarrassed attempts to explain the significance Paul attaches to his moral imperatives, which mostly conclude that Paul saw Christian works as ‘evidence' for salvation rather than ‘instrumental' in it."³² He goes on to say that Paul's argument that the Galatians are justified by faith and not by works of the law "does not constitute a renunciation of ‘works' as such, even of ‘works' as an important factor in salvation."³³ Thus, Barclay would suggest that since Paul's argument is that righteousness does not come by obedience to the Mosaic law, it could still come by obedience of some sort (i.e., good deeds).

I would suggest, however, that even under the "new perspective" this tension remains. Though I agree with Barclay that Paul uses e;rgwn no,mou to refer to obedience to the Mosaic law and not to obedience as such, Paul states in Gal 3:2 that righteousness³⁴ comes evx avkoh/j pi,stewj ("by believing what was heard").³⁵ Though it is certainly Pauline to suggest that faith leads to good deeds, "believing what was heard" per se (which is how Paul says one obtains righteousness) seems to exclude "doing" of any kind -- whether it be obedience to the Mosaic law or the doing of good deeds.³⁶ Thus, how can Paul teach that one obtains righteousness both by "believing what was heard" and by living a life of obedience?

Because of such difficulties within Paul, some scholars have characterized his letters as self-contradictory. Heikki Räisänen, perhaps the foremost of such scholars, states that "contradictions and tensions have to be accepted as constant features of Paul's theology of the law."³⁷ Kent Yinger suggests, however, that it is premature to accuse Paul of such blatant self-contradiction when the Apostle himself saw none:

What is remarkable in all of this is that the very thing which so exercises the modern interpreter of Paul -- a seeming ‘tension' -- seems to have caused the apostle himself almost no apparent theological discomfort. We find no lengthy explanations or qualifications when judgment according to deeds is mentioned in his letters. He would appear to sense no theological struggle between justification and judgment, nor does he seem to fear misunderstanding (i.e., the introduction of synergism or works-righteousness into salvation), although we know he was sensitive to potential or actual misunderstandings of his message (cf. Rom. 3:1-8; 6:1-23).³⁸

This Jewish paradigm, says Yinger, is to be described as a "dialectic of salvation/judgment, already/not yet, grace/works" and is found throughout the Old Testament.⁴⁰ Paul takes this "already/not yet" theology and applies it to righteousness. On the one hand, Paul portrays righteousness as a present reality for the believer. This is seen preeminently, as stated above, in the example of Abraham: "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Gal 3:6). This verse is a quote taken by Paul from Genesis 15:6, showing that Abraham received righteousness before he was circumcised (Gen 17:23-27) and before he "proved" himself by his obedience (Gen 22:1-12). Thus, by the time he was circumcised and subsequently "proved" himself, he had already been given the righteousness that came beforehand through faith. As stated previously, Paul uses this example of Abraham to illustrate that this "present righteousness" is a result of "believing what was heard," which rules out any "doing" on the believer's part.

At the same time, however, Paul claims that for the believer righteousness is a reality yet to come. At the beginning of the "ethical section" of his letter,⁴¹ Paul states that the Galatian believers, along with himself, are "eagerly awaiting the hope of righteousness [evlpi,da dikaiosu,nhj]" (Gal 5:5).⁴² Of course, if this righteousness is being "eagerly awaited," then it must be a righteousness not yet received -- an eschatological righteousness.

Paul's "already/not yet" soteriology is nothing new to modern scholarship. In reference to Paul's understanding of redemption in general, Thomas Schreiner states that "even though the Spirit has been given, Paul's theology still contains a ‘not yet.' The day of full redemption is still in the future."⁴³ This is seen more specifically, for example, in Paul's theology of adoption. Paul states in Rom 8:14 that those who are led by the Spirit of God are "sons of God" (the "already" of adoption), but later in vs. 23 he states that we are eagerly awaiting our "adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (the "not yet" of adoption).

Once one recognizes Paul's "already/not yet" theology of righteousness within Galatians, one further understands that the requirement for present righteousness may not be the same as the requirement for eschatological righteousness. Thus, our argument that good deeds are required for eschatological righteousness⁴⁴ poses no problem for Paul's defense of present righteousness by "believing what was heard."

Paul does not leave us, however, with a fragmented view of salvation within his letter to the Galatians. Rather, he gives us one coherent picture. The unifying thread that holds Paul's soteriology in Galatians together is none other than the Spirit himself. It is the Spirit alone who brings us present righteousness, produces his fruit within us, and through that fruit leads us to the eschatological life for which we strive.⁴⁵

As mentioned above, when a person receives the Spirit through faith, the Spirit brings righteousness with him. This is seen by Paul's illustration of Abraham, who "believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Gal 3:6). Just previously in Gal 3:1-5 Paul had been arguing that by believing one receives the Spirit: "Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by believing what you heard?" (Gal 3:2). But now in Gal 3:6 he states that this same act of believing brings righteousness. Thus, when a person places his faith in Jesus, he receives the Spirit and the righteousness that comes with him.

When the Spirit is received by a new believer, that Spirit brings with him not only a new found righteousness but the fruit of a transformed life. One must not think that he can produce this transformed life within himself. Only the Spirit is up to this task, for by nature we are all "under sin" [u`po. a`marti,an] (Gal 3:22). This Spirit-produced "way of life" is seen in Gal 5:22-23, where Paul states that "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,⁴⁶ gentleness, self-control." This list of the "fruit [karpo,j] of the Spirit" is laid out by Paul just after he lists the contrasting "works [e;rga] of the flesh" (Gal 5:19-21). Many scholars have rightly given attention to Paul's terminological shift from e;rga in Gal 5:19 to karpo,j in Gal 5:22. Ernest Burton suggests that this shift is due, not only to Paul's desire to avoid association between the list of Gal 5:22-23 and the phrase e;rga no,mou, but also to his preference for a term that suggests that these characteristics are "the natural product of a vital relationship between the Christian and the Spirit."⁴⁷ Likewise, Richard Longenecker states that Paul's terminology indicates that these virtues are "given as a gift by God through his Spirit" rather than being brought about by human effort.⁴⁸

Stott challenges this conclusion by asking the rhetorical question "How can we expect to reap the fruit of the Spirit if we do not sow in the field of the Spirit?"⁴⁹ Contrary to the views of Burton and Longenecker (above), Stott would suggest that human activity is necessary to bring about the birth of Spiritual fruit in the life of the believer. Though on the surface Stott's appeal seems legitimate (since he is making direct reference to Gal 5:22-23 and Gal 6:8), the flaw is in his confusion of these two images. Stott mistakenly assumes that the reapings of these two passages are the same -- the reaping of a transformed way of life (see above). But as we saw from our previous analysis, Gal 6:8 presents the picture of this new way of life as that which is sown rather than that which is reaped. A proper combining of the two images of Gal 5:22-23 and Gal 6:7-8 would suggest that, while eschatological life is reaped from the sowing of a transformed way of life, that way of life is reaped from the sowing of the Spirit himself.

Though I wish to defend the idea that it is the Spirit alone who produces a transformed life within the believer, I would by no means deny that the living out of that life involves human effort. R. Longenecker rightly warns against an "ethical passivity" which could arise from a faulty understanding of what it means for the Spirit to bear his fruit in our lives. Longenecker offers a healthy balance as he states the following: "As the exhortations throughout this entire section [4:12-6:10] suggest, combined with the givenness of these virtues by God is the believer's active involvement in expressing them in his or her own lifestyle."⁵⁰

The NIV's rendering of Gal 3:3, however, seems to challenge the idea that human effort could ever be a factor in the obtaining of eschatological life: "After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" The NIV's rendering of sarki, as "by human effort" rather than as "by the flesh" is unfortunate. The dualism that Paul presents in Galatians is not one of the Spirit (or even faith) vs. human effort, but one of the Spirit vs. the flesh. To suggest that one should not seek to attain eschatological life by the flesh in no way precludes human effort as a necessary component of such a quest.⁵¹

Paul himself assumes human effort to be an integral factor in one's living out of a transformed life when he says the following to the Galatians: "You were running well. Who prevented you from obeying the truth?" (Gal 5:7). Paul refers to living a transformed life as running a race,⁵² which of course takes effort on the runner's part. This is not the only place where Paul appeals to the imagery of running a race to highlight the need for human effort. Paul reminds the Corinthians that those who compete in the games "exercise self-control in all things [i.e., go into strict training (NIV)]" (1 Cor 9:25). In reference to preparation for his own race Paul says, "I beat my body and bring it under control" (1 Cor 9:27). Thus, Paul clearly sees human effort as a natural part of the living out of the life produced by the Spirit.

Since Paul presents human effort as involved in the pursuit of eschatological life, the question of merit naturally arises. When we stand at the judgment having faithfully followed the ways of the Lord, can we say that we have earned the reward that we will certainly receive? Preisker rightly answers with an emphatic "No!":

The meritorious character of the reward is ruled out. All that men do in actualisation of the will of God they do as the children of God, i.e., as those who have already been caught up in the living power of the kingdom of God.... The reference, then, is not to a moral action on the part of autonomous man.... Thus moral action is not an achievement which deserves a reward. It is living power in all its fulness, the power which is given by God. Hence it can raise no claim on God.⁵³

1. D. James Kennedy, Evangelism Explosion (Wheaton: Tyndale), 32. back

2. ga,r is here functioning as a causal connector between what the sheep have done and the invitation to take their inheritance. back

3. Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1990), 279. Cf. 1 Cor 6:9; 15:33; also Lk 21:8. back

4. "By basilei,an qeou/ the apostle doubtless means the reign of God which is to be inaugurated on the return of Christ from the heavens and the resurrection of the dead" [Ernest De Witt Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1977), 311]; "The kingdom of God for Paul lies in the future: it is the heritage of the people of God in the age to come, the resurrection age" [F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC, 1982), 251]. back

5. John Stott, James Dunn and R. H. Gundry suggest an evidential view, while Richard Longenecker, John Barclay and Kent Yinger seem to have instrumental tendencies. back

6. A causal relationship is a logical one as well. So explicitly the two categories would be "merely logical" relationships and "not only logical but also causal" relationships. back

7. This assumes B > A (which should be, and can be, argued for from the text). Thus, the full logic of the evidential position would appear as follows:
    1) A >> B
    2) B > A
    3) A >> C
    thus, 4) B > C back

8. Whether good deeds are a sufficient cause, rather than merely a necessary cause, for eschatological life is a matter of debate. back

9. Bruce, Galatians, 250. back

10. Bruce Longenecker, The Triumph of Abraham's God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 147. back

11. In Gal 6:8 Paul literally speaks of a man sowing into [eivj] the flesh or the Spirit because the flesh and the Spirit are the "soils" from which one may expect a harvest. [George S. Duncan, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (New York: Harper, 1934), 186]. back

12. J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 219. back

13. Lehman Strauss, Devotional Studies in Galatians and Ephesians (New York: Loizeaux Bros., 1957), 97; emphasis mine. back

14. Herman Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 218. It should be noted that Ridderbos may be allowing for the possibility that belief in the gospel is also required for eschatological life, though he is certainly maintaining that living a life of faithfulness to that gospel is required. back

15. Leon Morris, Galatians: Paul's Charter of Christian Freedom (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 1996), 182. back

16. Zane C. Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege: A Study on Faith and Works (Dallas: Redención Viva, 1982), 82. back

17. Bruce, Galatians, 265. back

18. John R. W. Stott, Only One Way (London: IVP, 1973), 169. Emphasis mine. back

19. Stott, Only One Way, 171. back

20. Bruce, Galatians, 265; also R. Longenecker who says that this passage refers to the "final end" of those who sow to the flesh [R. Longenecker, Galatians, 281]. back

21. R. Longenecker, Galatians, 280. back

22. Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 309. back

23. John MacArthur, Galatians (Chicago: Moody, 1987), 188. back

24. Morris, Galatians, 183; also Thomas R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of the Law (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 185. back

25. Calvin J. Roetzel, Judgement in the Community: A Study of the Relationship Between Eschatology and Ecclesiology in Paul (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1972), 5-6. Roetzel cites Lieselotte Mattern's work Verständnis as an "excellent representation" of this classical Reformed understanding. back

26. MacArthur, Galatians, 187-8. back

27. Timothy George, Galatians NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 423. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer lists the following as further locations where this maxim can be found: Hosea 8:7, Job 4:8, Prov 22:8, Ecclus. 7:2, Plat. Phaedr. p. 260 D, Arist. Rhet. iii. 4, Plut. Mor. p. 394 D, Cic. de orat. ii. 65: "ut sementem feceris, ita metes," "as you make the seeding, so will you reap" [Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistle to the Galatians (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 255, note 4]. back

28. Betz, Galatia, 307-8; emphasis mine. back

29. Henry M. Shires, The Eschatology of Paul in the Light of Modern Scholarship (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 113. back

30. To justify means "to credit righteousness." back

31. When Paul says "If a law had been given that could impart life, indeed righteousness would have been by law" (Gal 3:21), we should understand him to be saying that "righteousness" is that which brings "life." This use of "righteousness" and "life" in Paul is made more clear by Rom 5:20-21, where Paul says, "Where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life [dia. dikaiosu,nhj eivj zwh.n aivw,nion] through Jesus Christ our Lord." Burton is too imprecise when he suggests that the concepts of "righteousness" and "life" are used virtually synonymously within Galatians [Burton, Galatians, 195]. back

32. John M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 226-7. back

33. Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 236; see also James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990), 201. back

34. Paul actually says that it is the Spirit that comes by believing what was heard, but within the immediate context it is evident that Paul uses "the Spirit" and "righteousness" interchangeably. This is because it is through the reception of the Spirit by faith that one receives righteousness. This substitution of "the Spirit" for "righteousness" is seen in Gal 3:6, where Paul, who had just been arguing that believing grants the Spirit, now almost in the same breath claims that believing grants righteousness. Thus we can say that Paul is suggesting in Gal 3:2 that righteousness comes by believing what was heard. back

35. R. Longenecker rightly takes avkoh/j pi,stewj to mean "believing what you heard" [R. Longenecker, Galatians, 103]. back

36. George, Galatians, 211. back

37. Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 11; as quoted in Moises Silva, Explorations in Exegetical Method: Galatians as a Test Case (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 143. back

38. Kent L. Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment According to Deeds (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 15. back

39. Yinger, 2-3. back

40. Yinger, 63. back

41. It is only fitting that Paul would mention eschatological righteousness at the beginning of the ethical section of his letter, for Paul clearly seeks to give the Galatians motivation and a goal to strive for as he exhorts them to live a life of good deeds. back

42. dikaiosu,nhj is to be understood epexegetically [Burton, Galatians, 278]. The "not yet" of righteousness is also seen in 2 Tim 4:7-8 where Paul says, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day." Righteousness was "laid up" for Paul as he "fought the good fight," "finished the race," and "kept the faith," but he will not receive that "crown of righteousness" until the Lord himself gives it to him at the last day. Additionally, it should be noted that by "hope of righteousness" Paul refers to a sure hope, not an uncertain hope [Bruce, Galatians, 231-232]. back

43. Schreiner, Law, 204. back

44. See footnote 31. back

45. At this point, one may rightly wonder what the death of Christ has to do with all of this, and with the judgment in particular. If the Spirit grants everything needed for salvation, what place is left for Christ and his death in the soteriology of Galatians? After all, Paul himself states that Christ's death was necessary for the obtaining of righteousness (Gal 2:21). Though it is true that it is the Spirit himself who grants everything needed for salvation in the life of the believer, it is only through the death of Christ that the way is made for the Spirit to enter the human heart: "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts" (Gal 4:4-6). Paul here shows that through the death of Christ, God has redeemed us, and that by doing so has made us sons, which in turn opens up the way for the Spirit to come into our hearts. Once the Spirit enters our hearts, everything that is needed for salvation is granted to the believer. See also Gal 3:14, which states that Christ "redeemed us [from the curse of the law, Gal 3:10-13] in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit." back

46. The word used here is pi,stij. It could be argued, though it is by no means certain, that once a person begins with the Spirit he will certainly continue with the Spirit since the faith that keeps him with the Spirit is actually produced by the Spirit himself. back

47. Burton, Galatians, 313. back

48. R. Longenecker, Galatians, 259; also 284. back

49. Stott, Only One Way, 170. back

50. R. Longenecker, Galatians, 259-260; emphasis mine. back

51. Burton, Galatians, 148. back

52. It seems reasonable to assume that Paul is here referring to the living out of a Spiritual way of life, as opposed to a fleshly way of life, since his reference to running well is clearly positive. back

53. Preisker. "The Concept of Reward in the New Testament." In TDNT, ed. G. Kittel, trans. G. Bromiley, vol. IV, 718-9. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967. back

54. John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, trans. T. H. L. Parker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 179. back