Richard Carrier's Misreading of Galatians 4

"Like a Christian apologist (6-4513ff.), Casey misses the entire context of Galatians 4 and that Paul is speaking allegorically."

Alrighty. I want to point out that Christian apologists aren't the only ones who read the text this way. Nor do we dismiss context...we try to be as faithful as possible to the text. In fact this has been the dominant reading of the text until Carrier. Here's the text: 

Sons and Heirs [1] I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, [2] but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. [3] In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. [4] But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, [5] to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. [6] And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” [7] So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. Paul's Concern for the Galatians [8] Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. [9] But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? [10] You observe days and months and seasons and years! [11] I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain. [12] Brothers, I entreat you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong. [13] You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, [14] and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. [15] What then has become of your blessedness? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me. [16] Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth? [17] They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them. [18] It is always good to be made much of for a good purpose, and not only when I am present with you, [19] my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you! [20] I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone, for I am perplexed about you. Example of Hagar and Sarah [21] Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? [22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. [23] But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. [24] Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. [25] Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. [26] But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. [27] For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.” [28] Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. [29] But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. [30] But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” [31] So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. (Galatians 4 ESV)
Carrier's position is that when Paul speaks of Jesus "emerging into being out of woman", he's talking metaphorically. His exegesis is essentially as follows. In verse 24, Paul highlights the fact that being born "according to the flesh" and being born "through the promise" are allegories. Those who are born according to the promise are born to their metaphorical mother, Jerusalem from above. Therefore, when the text speaks of Jesus emerging into existence (ginomai) out of woman, it's talking about his metaphorical status of being symbolically born, it's not talking about a literal birth.

This is a tortured argument-it's funny that Carrier tries to say "well leave it to Christian apologists to take the interpretation held almost universally up until I come along on the scene."

Correct Exegesis
Paul comes out of Galatians 3 talking about how we inherit Christ's status as the offspring of Abraham through faith in Him. In Galatians 4, Paul's aim is to further substantiate that claim. If we are a child of Abraham, we are a child of the promise, and therefore an heir of God (since that is what God promises in Christ-see Romans 8). In order to secure our status as sons (and therein release us from our slavery to the "elementary principles of this world", God had to do something in order to release us from slavery. We were heirs, and thus slaves, until the date set for us by our Father. When this date came (i.e in the fullness of time), God sent forth His Son to establish our sonship. Now why does Paul add to the phrase "emerged into existence out of woman" "emerged into existence under the law to redeem those under the law"? Because he's saying that Jesus was Jewish. The only types of people who were under the law were human beings. We have ZERO evidence for any non-human figure being held accountable to the law of God. However, Jesus Himself became subject to the law in order to redeem those subject to the law. We can establish this in terms of premises: 1.) Those who are subject to the law are humans 2.) Jesus became subject to the law 3.) Ergo, Jesus became a man

Carrier's interpretation falls flat because the concept of metaphor doesn't even come into play until verse 21, long after Paul has mentioned Jesus came into being out of woman. The point of the verse 21 is NOT to say that Jesus's birth was metaphorical. In verse 21, Paul's addressing Christians who are considering bowing to the demands of the law. He uses the two sons of Abraham metaphor to expound upon a larger point; those who are according to the flesh persecute those who are according to the promise (verse 28-31). The descendants of Ishmael often ran into conflict with the descendants of Isaac; the children born according to the flesh (Abraham's failure to trust God-by purely natural, human means) persecuted those born according to the promise. Therefore, this has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus not actually coming into being from woman as a human. The metaphor is located in the context of trying to convince the Galatians to not submit to the law as the basis of our right standing with God; Christ already has, and has therefore redeemed us from it. As I said, the only evidence we have for being "subject to the law" would entail that being subject to the law is a property of humans. Ergo Carrier is a bad exegete. Or a dishonest one.

(As a side note, Paul views the law positively in Romans 7-his view has not changed. He simply is pointing out that because we fail to keep the law, we are under condemnation. Hence, Jesus redeems us from the curse of the law by taking it upon Himself in verse 13, and perfectly keeping it).

Response to Basaam Zawadi

Okay, so here's an article I will be addressing by a Muslim apologist named "Basaam Zawadi". Namely, he addresses Surah 5:68, which many Christians take to mean that the Quran is telling Christians to judge it by the Gospel. His response is as such: http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_regarding_the_qur_an_ordering_the_jews_and_christians_to_judge_by_their_scriptures

Zawadi's main argument is that the Torah and the Gospel came beforehand, but now the Quran is the standard, and thus previous revelations are subordinate. Therefore, when you have a Surah like 5:68 which says: 

"Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith."

He takes that to mean that the Law and the Gospel are subordinate to "all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord", aka the Quran. First the phrase "all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord" isn't a reference to the Quran. In fact, given that this revelation didn't come to the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), but to Muhammad, this could not be a reference to the Quran. If this was supposed to be a reference to the Quran, why tell Israel to listen to that which has been revealed to them? Why not instead command them to listen to what has been revealed to Muhammad? 

But there's an even more central problem. The aiya says to stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, AND all the revelation that has come from your Lord. In other words, it doesn't say to subordinate the Law and the Gospel to the revelation. The People of the book are to stand behind all three, not one over the other. Now, the other Surah's he cites certainly demonstrates that the author of the Quran meant for the Quran to be a revelation from Allah. It is also true that the author sees the Quran as confirming that which came before. But it's not true that the Quran judges the Law and the Gospel; according to 5:68, if we take "revelation" to be the Quran (which I dispute), then Christians are supposed to stand behind all three. Zawadi seems to see this, but he doesn't realize the problem: to stand behind all three is impossible. Why would Allah tell us to stand behind the Law and the Gospel when all that's needed to stand behind is the Quran? Why would he say to stand behind the Law, the Gospel, AND the Quran rather than just tell us to stand by the Quran, and judge the Law and the Gospel by the Quran? It seems to me much more likely that the author of the Quran thought that the Law and the Gospel as it was supported the Quran.

Really quick, I want to address his mis-inference from a hadith. He says:

"They said, "In the Torah, we find that if four men testify that they saw his male organ in her womb, similar to when the eyeliner is inserted inside the eyeliner container; in this case they are stoned."  The Prophet peace be upon him said, "What made you stop stoning?" They said, "Our kingship (meaning Jewish) was taken from us and we hated killing." The Messenger of Allah asked for four witnesses and they brought four men who testified that they saw his penis in her womb like the eyeliner is inserted in the eyeliner container. The Messenger of Allah ordered that the two [adulterers] are stoned"

He says this provides indirect evidence that the Torah has been toyed with because we find no such thing in the Torah about four men or eyeliner. However, we do find something about witnesses: "“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established." - Deuteronomy 19:15

In order for someone to be convicted of a crime, this verse set a minimum. Obviously, if one had more than two or three witnesses to a crime, it would be outlandish to think that the criminal wouldn't be punished. Hence, these men were right; if four men testified to another man's crime of adultery, this would constitute evidence. The eyeliner line is simply a crude analogy describe sexual intercourse-it's not describing what was in the law.

Moving on.


Let's take a look at Surah 5:47. Zawadi argues that this verse applies to everyone because of the second half of the verse, which is a universal condemnatory statement. So it's referring to the undistorted version of the Gospel. However, this doesn't work. Let's look at verses 46-48.And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a guardian over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.

In context, what was revealed therein is was the Gospel. And Muhammad-not the Jews-is supposed to judge between them by the Book in truth (i.e the Quran). Again, the question still stands: why, if the Gospel the Christians possessed at the time was corrupted, would Allah tell them to judge by it? The verse isn't saying to judge the Gospel by the Quran-it's saying to do it the other way around. I want to press this point further. Surah 4:136:

"O you who have believed, believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book that He sent down upon His Messenger and the Scripture which He sent down before. And whoever disbelieves in Allah , His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day has certainly gone far astray."

Now, could one argue that this verse is saying to use the Book to judge the Scripture He sent down before? No, because the verse is saying to believe the book that He sent down AND the Scripture which He sent before. Why would Allah distinguish between the two, and then tell Muslims to believe both if the Scriptures were corrupt? Why not just tell Muslims to believe in the Book and to judge that which came before? If the author of the Quran really believed that the Scriptures were corrupt, why would he have told Muslims to believe both? 

And of course, if Christian Scriptures weren't corrupt, that presents a problem since we know what they said. Allah would be telling people to believe contradictory messages. Moreover, Allah says that we find Muhammad mentioned in our own Scriptures. Of course, we don't though. http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/muhammad_in_bible.htm

Now, let us suppose that Zawadi is right in interpreting the verse to mean that Christians should judge by the Quran. In that case, Surah 5:68 (and the 47 I think), which tell us to judge by the Gospel, are really telling us to judge the Quran...by the Quran. But in that case, why tell us to judge by the Gospel at all? Why tell Christians to judge by the Gospel if Allah really meant by that to judge by the Quran? That doesn't work.

So it seems that the argument still stands.