As Many as Were Baptised: Re-examining the Relationship Between Faith and Baptism in Galatians 3.27

Introduction

In Gal. 3.26–27, in a discussion chiefly about circumcision and its fulfilment in Christ, Paul brings baptism into his discussion. He says to the Galatians,

ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε.

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. ¹

But what does Paul mean when he says that ‘as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ’? And how does that relate to faith mentioned in v. 26?

It is generally assumed that the two actions in v. 27 are related such that baptism is the means or mode by which Christ is ‘put on’. ² Dunn (2010: 111) puts it starkly,

The connection between v. 27a and v. 27b is so close that we must take the phrases as alternative and interchangeable expressions for the same reality: to be baptized into Christ is to put on Christ.

That leads to the question of how baptism actually achieves putting on Christ.

For Schlier (1947: 332; 1989: 172), the act of baptism actually brings about being ‘in Christ’, not independently of faith, but as the step to which true faith inevitably leads. Das, too, asserts unequivocally that by baptism believers put on Christ and become sons of God (Das 2014: 380). Beasley-Murray (2005: 151) is cautious to avoid such a conclusion while also seeking to maintain the necessity of baptism. For him, baptism is the ‘moment of faith in which the adoption is realized’, in which it is ‘effected by God and grasped by man’. It is in baptism that ‘faith receives the Christ in whom adoption is effected’.

Barth (2004: 4:116) suggests that what is in view is not water baptism but Spirit baptism—the ‘concrete moment in their own life in which they for their part confirmed, recognised and accepted their investing with Christ from above, their ontic relationship to Him, not only in gratitude and hope, but also in readiness and vigilance’. For Dunn (1993: 203; 2010: 109), too, Spirit baptism is primarily in view, though it functions pars pro toto for the whole of the conversion-initiation experience, including water baptism, to some degree.

Bruce (1982: 185–86) takes almost the same approach as Dunn but instead with respect to water baptism: water baptism, although it is the ‘gateway to “being-in-Christ”’, is merely one part of the ‘complex experience of Christian initiation’ standing in for the whole. Fung (1988: 174) does something similar, first noting that ‘union with Christ is ascribed both to faith (v. 26) and to baptism (v. 27)’, but then insisting that the apparent equation of faith and baptism as the means of union with Christ ‘may be explained as a natural transference of terms whereby the symbol (baptism) is said to effect that which it symbolizes or as a form of metonymy whereby what is strictly true of faith is predicated of baptism’.

Despite their different conclusions on the relationship between faith, baptism, and union with Christ, each of these interpretations share the assumption that εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε is essentially the means by which Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε. ³ That is, they each assume that ‘putting on Christ’ is something that takes place through baptism (whether as a capstone, pars pro toto, or seal of a relationship formed by faith). But another option presents itself, which is both grammatically possible and contextually more likely—that is, that baptism is not at all the means by which believers have put on Christ but rather that putting on Christ is the response to baptism.

The Meaning of Ὅσοι

To a large degree, our understanding of Paul’s words in Gal. 3.27 rests on understanding the function of the ὅσος construction. In Gal. 3.27, Paul says,

ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε

For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. . . .

At one level, ὅσος is merely a correlative pronoun that expresses ideas such as ‘as much as’, ‘as many as’, ‘as long as’, and ‘wherever’. In other words, ὅσος simply serves to compare and (roughly) equate the size of two groups or the duration of two events. ⁴ But while ὅσος itself merely compares the size of two groups, the features of the broader construction within which it is situated enable the whole construction to carry a more specific meaning. As Beale et al. note (2014: 73–74), ὅσος can also allow for several logical relationships between the clauses beyond mere comparison. For example, it allows for relationships such as general-specific, idea-exploration, fact-interpretation, or conditional. Importantly, the main function of ὅσος in equating two groups never disappears, nor does ὅσος itself encode the logical relationships. Nevertheless, the syntactic and semantic values of other elements within the ὅσος construction enable us to determine logical relationships between the two clauses.

To that end, it is helpful to examine other situations in which ὅσος appears. For the sake of clarity, in what follows we shall denote the clause in which ὅσος appears as the ‘A’ clause (in the case of Gal. 3.27, ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε) and the second clause (or non-ὅσος clause), the ‘B’ clause (in the case of Gal. 3.27, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε).

Means-End

The typical interpretation of Gal. 3.27 takes the ὅσος construction as expressing a kind of means-end relationship. That is, baptism is understood to be the means (in some sense) by which one puts on Christ. We see an example of such a use of ὅσος in Mt. 14.36:

καὶ ὅσοι ἥψαντο διεσώθησαν

And as many as touched it [his garment] were delivered. ⁵

It is true that the function of ὅσος here is still to equate the size of the two groups. Nevertheless, the expression as a whole also indicates that it is by touching Jesus’s garment that the sick are healed. The action of the A clause (ἥψαντο) is the instrument or means by which the action of the B clause (διεσώθησαν) takes place. So, too, not only is the A event the means by which the B event takes place, but the two events are simultaneous. However, that kind of use is quite rare in the NT and only takes place in very specific circumstances. For example, in Mt. 14.36, the verb of the B clause has a passive sense. ⁶

The use in the B clause of a verb with a passive sense is to be expected where the action in the A clause is the means by which the B event takes place. ⁷ Intuitively, if the verb of the B clause also has an active sense then it must represent a distinct action, even if those two actions are simultaneous. ⁸ It is only if the B action has a passive sense that the A action can be the means of the B event. ⁹ Nevertheless, a passive sense in the B clause does not necessarily imply that the A event is the means of achieving the B event. For example, ¹⁰

πάντα ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὰ ἁμαρτήματα καὶ αἱ βλασφημίαι ὅσα ἐὰν βλασφημήσωσιν·

all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and as many blasphemies as they speak. . . . (Mk 3.28)

In this case, ἀφεθήσεται has a passive sense, yet its future tense indicates a separate (future) action that must be subsequent to the blasphemies that have already taken place (βλασφημήσωσιν). Moreover, there is no hint here of causation—blasphemy is not the means by which forgiveness comes!

A particularly interesting example is found in Mt. 25.40 (also v. 45). Jesus says,

ἐφʼ ὅσον ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν ἐλαχίστων, ἐμοὶ ἐποιήσατε.

as much as you did it to one of these least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me.

In this case, kindness shown to one of Jesus’s brothers was at the same time kindness to Jesus. Similarly, kindness to one of Jesus’s brothers was the means of kindness to Jesus. Interestingly, it is in the A action (ἐποιήσατε) that the B action (ἐποιήσατε) took place even though the second verb is in the active voice. Here, however, it is the repetition in both clauses of the same verb in the same tense, mood, and voice with the same subject (ἐποιήσατε) that conveys the simultaneity.

Situation-Response

In some cases, ὅσος is used in constructions that describe states rather than actions. It may relate two states together, or a state in A to an action in B, or vice versa. For example, ¹¹

πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ ἐμά ἐστιν·

All that the Father has is mine . . . (Jn 16.15)

ὅσοι γὰρ πνεύματι θεοῦ ἄγονται, οὗτοι υἱοὶ θεοῦ εἰσιν.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. (Rom. 8.14)

The key factor in these uses, however, is the presence of εἰμί or another verb whose lexeme carries a stative sense (e.g., ἔχω). In each of these cases, the state/action in the B clause may overlap temporally with the state/action in the A clause. Notably, however, the B state/action is not before the A state/action; neither is the A state/action dependent on the B state/action or caused by it. ¹² That must be so since the A clause forms the basis of the comparison. In other words, the A state/action is logically, if not also temporally, prior to the B state/action.

Of particular interest, however, are instances in the NT where ὅσος connects two actions such that the first action (in A) is not the means or the cause of the second (in B). For example, in Acts 5.37, Gamaliel notes that,

καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ διεσκορπίσθησαν

and all who followed him [Judas] were scattered.

Plainly, following Judas was not the means or the cause of the scattering. Rather, the scattering was a subsequent action that occurred after and somewhat independently of the act of following Judas.

Similarly, in Acts 4.34 it says,

ὅσοι γὰρ κτήτορες χωρίων ἢ οἰκιῶν ὑπῆρχον, πωλοῦντες ἔφερον τὰς τιμὰς τῶν πιπρασκομένων

for as many as were owners of fields or houses, sold them and brought the money from what had been sold. . . .

Clearly, it is impossible that the A action (i.e., owning houses) was the means by which the B action was achieved (i.e., selling them). It is impossible to sell property by owning it!

Nevertheless, in both the previous examples, there is a connection of sorts between the A action and the B action. That is, one must be following Judas in order to be scattered. Likewise, one must own property in order to sell it. In both cases, the events of the A clause are both logically and temporally prior to the events of the B clause. ¹³

Other such examples abound. For example, ¹⁴

καὶ ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον·

and they believed, as many as were appointed to eternal life. (Acts 13.48)

ἀνήγγειλάν τε ὅσα ὁ θεὸς ἐποίησεν μετʼ αὐτῶν.

and they reported as much as God had done with them. (Acts 15.4)

In both cases, the action of the B clause takes place after the action in the A clause—those who believed had already been appointed to eternal life, and the content of the declaration in Acts 15 was what God had already done.

In each of these examples, ὅσος serves to relate an event in B to a group in A (either people or events) which was involved in an action that had already taken place. In such cases, the entire ὅσος construction is best understood in terms of ‘situation-response’ (on which, see Schreiner 2011: 109–10; Beale et al. 2014: 11). In such a model, the situation is not the means or the cause of the response. Instead, the response is a reaction to a situation that has already taken place. As Beale et al. note, such a relationship is common in instances where there are multiple actors, such as in the case where the actions of the A and B clauses are carried out by distinct actors. And as we will see later, that is precisely the case in Gal. 3.27.

Of course, as we have seen previously, the A event is not always temporally prior. Where the two events are simultaneous, the A event is only logically prior, but obviously, it is not temporally prior. ¹⁵ In these cases, the relationship is rightly recognised as a means-end relationship. Nevertheless, the means-end relationship can only be in play where either (i) the B event has a passive sense or (ii) the A and B verbs are the same, with the same subjects, voice, and tense. Where, however, the B event is not simultaneous with the A event, the A event is both logically and temporally prior, and the relationship ought to be understood in terms of situation-response.

So, although the main purpose of ὅσος itself is simply to compare and equate (roughly) the size of two groups, nevertheless, as we have seen, it is possible to draw conclusions about the temporal and logical relationship of the A and B clauses based on other syntactic and semantic markers within the broader construction. For example, in certain cases, the events are simultaneous and the relationship between the events is one of means-end (e.g., touching Jesus’s cloak in order to be healed). In other cases, the B event is clearly subsequent to the A event, in which case the relationship is best understood as situation-response.

The Relationship Between Baptising and Putting on Christ

It appears, then, that in respect of the ὅσος construction, the action of A need not be understood as the means by which the B event takes place. Yet, as we have seen, that is the way Gal. 3.27 is typically understood. Thus,

For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have [by that baptism] put on Christ.

In that understanding, baptism (A) is the means by which putting on Christ (B) takes place.

But as we have seen previously, another possibility is to take the entire ὅσος construction as expressing a situation-response relationship:

For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have [subsequently/as a response] put on Christ.

As demonstrated previously, the features of the broader ὅσος construction enable us to determine which meaning is preferable. Importantly, in Gal. 3.27, those features suggest that a situation-response understanding is the better choice.

In particular, within the semantic structure of Gal. 3.27, there is a shift in verb from βαπτίζω to ἐνδύω and also a shift from a verb with a passive sense in A to an active/middle sense in B. Considering what we have seen previously, one would expect that if the A event (baptism) was the means by which the B event took place (‘putting on Christ’), then either (i) the A and B verbs would be the same, with the same subjects, voice, and tense, or (ii) the B verb would have a passive sense.

With respect to the former, that is what we find in Rom. 6.3, ¹⁶

ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν

as many of us as were baptised into Christ Jesus, were baptised into his death. . . .

On this occasion, Paul’s expression has both the features we would expect for a means-end relationship between the A and the B clauses. Paul uses a verb with a passive sense in the B clause, but he also repeats the same verb (βαπτίζω) in the same tense, mood, and voice and with the same subject. ¹⁷ That implies that the same event is reflected in both clauses. Paul’s point is that to be baptised into Christ implies, by necessity, being baptised into his death. One cannot have Christ without participation in his death, hence, to continue in sin makes no sense, since we have died to sin (Rom. 6.6). ¹⁸

The grammatical structure in Rom. 6.3, however, is quite different from Gal. 3.27. Although superficially the two passages are similar, Gal. 3.27 changes both the verb and the active/passive sense. The change of the verb itself is not necessarily significant. It would be possible for the verb to change between the A and B clauses and yet be expressing a means-end relationship. This could be possible where the A and B verbs differ stylistically but refer to the same event. For example, ‘As many of you who were baptised were washed’. Nevertheless, in Gal. 3.27 the change is significant since, as we will see, the change from ἐβαπτίσθητε in A to ἐνεδύσασθε in B also involves a change from a passive sense in A to a middle/active sense in B and, relatedly, a change in the person taking the action—from the implicit baptiser in A to the person who has been baptised in B.

Clearly, the sense of ἐβαπτίσθητε is passive—the recipient of baptism is experiencing an event performed by another. However, the sense of the middle ἐνεδύσασθε is more complex. In the NT, ἐνδύω only occurs in the middle voice. Typically, the sense of the middle voice is reflexive. Although Porter (1994: 67) gives a broader and more helpful definition, noting that it ‘expresses more direct participation, specific involvement, or even some form of benefit of the subject doing the action’. Indeed, he contends that the middle voice ‘carries the most semantic weight of the Greek voices’ and describes ‘the heightened involvement of the subject in the event’. As Dunn (2010: 110) notes, then, with respect to Gal. 3.27,

As the middle voice and the parallel uses (especially Rom. 13.14; Col. 3.10; Eph. 4.24) indicate, it signifies an act of the will—a responding to Christ and a commitment to Christ whereby the life and character (that is, the Spirit) of Jesus is received (henceforth to be manifested in a new way of life), and whereby participation in the καινὴ κτίσις (6.15), in the new humanity of Christ is granted (3.29).

In other words, the middle voice reflects a decisive action on the part of the one baptised.

If that is the case in Gal. 3.27, then the reflexive event in B (ἐνεδύσασθε, ‘have put on/clothed yourselves’) represents quite a significant shift from the passive event in A (ἐβαπτίσθητε, ‘been baptised’). That is, there is a shift from the (implicit) baptiser who is baptising in the A clause to the person who is clothing themselves. The presence of distinct agents implies that the two actions of ‘baptising’ and ‘clothing/putting on’ cannot be taken as expressing a means-end relationship. Instead, as we saw previously, the relationship ought to be understood as situation-response. That is, the A action (baptism) ought to be understood as the situation and the B action (putting on Christ) as the response.

Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that the reflexive idea is not always present when ἐνδύω appears in the middle voice. Occasionally that falls away and the result is a passive sense (BDAG, 334). For example,

ὑμεῖς δὲ καθίσατε ἐν τῇ πόλει ἕως οὗ ἐνδύσησθε ἐξ ὕψους δύναμιν.

But remain in the city until you are clothed with power from on high. (Lk. 24.49)

This instance is significant since if ἐνδύω is sometimes passive in meaning even though it is middle in form, then perhaps it should be understood as having a passive sense in Gal. 3.27 as well. In that case, ‘baptism’ would most likely be the means by which ‘putting on Christ’ takes place. Again, it would be rendered, ‘as many as were baptised were clothed [in that baptism]’.

Nevertheless, several points count against that interpretation. First, only very rarely does the reflexive sense of ἐνδύω fall away when it occurs in the middle. In the NT, it arguably occurs only in Lk. 24.49, which we noted previously. ¹⁹ Second, in Lk. 24.49, the agent of the action is expressed by the prepositional phrase ἐξ ὕψους, giving explicit grounds for the passive sense to be taken even though the form is middle. No such agent is expressed in Gal. 3.27. But third, and most importantly, when Paul uses clothing language elsewhere in reference to the believer, it is always in the middle voice and the sense is invariably reflexive. For example,

But put on yourselves [ἐνδύσασθε] the Lord Jesus Christ. . . . (Rom. 13.14)

to put on yourselves [ἐνδύσασθαι] the new man, which has been created according to God in true righteousness and piety. (Eph. 4.22–24)

Do not lie to one another, having taken off the old humanity with its deeds and having put on yourselves (ἐνδυσάμενοι) the new. . . . Put on yourselves [Ἐνδύσασθε], then, as God’s elect, holy and loved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, forbearance. . . . (Col. 3.9–12) ²⁰

Significantly, in each case, the action envisaged is taken by the believer themselves and the sense is reflexive. The believer is to ‘put on themselves’ either Christ or the new creation. ²¹ Moreover, in none of these instances does Paul suggest that ‘putting on Christ’ is to be achieved specifically through baptism. That is clear not only from the fact that baptism is absent in most of these contexts ²² but also from the fact that in these other examples Paul expects the Christians to continue to ‘put on’ these things. Such ongoing action cannot be narrowly equated with the one-off event of baptism.

Nevertheless, the key point is that, in Paul, ἐνεδύσασθε is typically reflexive. There are good grounds, in that case, for suspecting that it will be reflexive in Gal. 3.27 as well. If so, then in Gal. 3.27 we have a shift from the passive ἐβαπτίσθητε to the reflexive ἐνεδύσασθε. According to the normal use of ὅσος, that would imply a relationship between the A and the B clause of situation-response rather than means-end. That is, ‘putting on Christ’ is a response to baptism rather than baptism being the means by which Christ is put on. This will be further established as we study the nature of Paul’s argument in Gal. 3.27. We will begin by seeking to understand what Paul means by ‘putting on Christ’ within the context of Galatians.

Putting on Christ in the Context of Galatians 3

In Galatians, Paul is addressing the issue that the believers there are in danger of abandoning the gospel (Gal. 1.6–7). The danger lies, however, not in misunderstanding how one begins the Christian life but how one ‘completes’ it or is ‘perfected’ (ἐπιτελέω) in it (Gal. 3.3). The Galatians had come to believe, at least in practice, that although one begins with faith and the Spirit, the Christian life is finished off by the ‘flesh’ and ‘works’ (Gal. 3.2–3). The Galatians were returning to the ‘weak and worthless’ principles of the world (Gal. 4.3, 9–10), to the rituals and rules of the law, in order to ‘perfect’ their growth in the Christian life. ²³

That issue finds expression in chapter 2 when Peter and some others withdrew from fellowship with Gentiles who had not embraced Jewish customs (Gal. 2.11–14). Superficially, the issue appears to be food laws since the concern is that Peter withdrew from eating with Gentiles. Nevertheless, the term ἰουδαΐζω (2.14), together with Paul’s reference to the ‘works of the law’ (2.15–16), suggests that the issue is broader than that—it likely refers to a whole suite of Jewish regulations, such as circumcision, food laws, Sabbath, and more (Deenick 2018: 187). ²⁴

However, the dominant ‘weak and worthless’ principle that garners Paul’s attention throughout Galatians is circumcision. Even in the dispute over table fellowship in chapter 2, circumcision is clearly also involved. In the lead-up to Paul’s report of his confrontation with Peter, circumcision is the key issue. In 2.3, Paul maintains that the leaders of the church in Jerusalem had not required Titus to be circumcised. So, too, the apostles recognised Paul’s commission to take the gospel to the ‘uncircumcised’ (2.7–9).

Similarly, as Paul draws his letter to a close in chapters 5 and 6, circumcision again reappears as a key theme. Paul’s strong language in 5.2–3 as he begins the concluding section of the epistle suggests his rejection of circumcision as a necessity is the key point of his letter. Paul’s use there of ἴδε, his fronted, emphatic self-reference (ἐγὼ Παῦλος); ²⁵ his ‘unnecessary “metacomment”’ (λέγω ὑμῖν); ²⁶ his use of the legal language of ‘testimony’ (μαρτύρομαι); ²⁷ and his dramatic explanation of the cost of remaining committed to circumcision (they are ‘severed’ [κατηργήθητε] from Christ and have ‘fallen away from grace’ [τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε]) all suggest the issue of circumcision stands at the centre of his concern for the Galatians and hence at the centre of this letter. So, too, Paul mentions circumcision five more times before the letter concludes. What matters, Paul concludes, is not circumcision or uncircumcision but ‘faith working through love’ (5.6) and a ‘new creation’ (6.15) or, indeed, the hope of righteousness that we eagerly await through the Spirit (5.5). It is not circumcision, the flesh, or the law that perfects the Christian but the Spirit received through faith.

This is the argument Paul is at pains to make in the heart of the letter in chapters 3 and 4. Paul addresses head-on the Galatians’ misplaced confidence in circumcision, the flesh, and the law as he begins chapter 3. He writes,

Did you receive the Spirit from works of the law or from the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish that having begun by the Spirit, you are now being perfected by the flesh? (Gal. 3.2–3)

The answer is that it is by faith that they received the Spirit, just as Abraham was promised and believed (Gal 3.14). From there Paul spends the remainder of chapters 3 and 4 explaining who the true sons of Abraham are. Throughout chapters 3 and 4, he employs the language of sonship (3.7, 26; 4.5, 6 [2x], 7 [2x], 22, 30 [3x]), children (4.25, 27, 28, 31), and heirs and inheritance (3.18, 29; 4.1, 7, 30), as well as focussing on the identity of the σπέρμα (3.16, 19, 29; ibid. 201–4). Curiously, circumcision is not mentioned at all in chapters 3 and 4. Nevertheless, the issue is very much front and centre, appearing throughout these chapters under the guise of this language of Abrahamic sonship, covenant, and inheritance (ibid. 185).

Paul begins his argument by noting that all who are ‘from the works of the law are under a curse’ (3.10). Nevertheless, Christ has become a curse to redeem them (3.13). The intention is that ‘the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles’ (3.14). The blessing of Abraham that Paul has in mind is ‘the promise of the Spirit’ who comes ‘through faith’ (3.14). ²⁸

The question, however, becomes: if they have been redeemed from the curse of the law, what is the place of the law now? At the heart of the Galatians’ issue is their misunderstanding of the ongoing place of the law because of their misunderstanding of the historical place of the law. But as Paul explains, the promise came first, and the later addition of the law did not annul the fact that the inheritance comes by promise (Gal. 3.18). Not only so, but the promise was only ever made to one descendant. In the first place that was Isaac, then Jacob, but ultimately it is Jesus (Gal. 3.16). The inheritance belongs, first of all, to him alone. ²⁹

The purpose of the law, then, was simply to tide the people over until the coming of the true heir of Abraham (3.19). The law represented a kind of guardian that confined the people in their ‘infancy’ until the time came for the true heir to receive his inheritance (3.23–24; 4.1–2).

The mystery, of course, is how the blessing of the Spirit promised to Abraham and his one ‘seed’ might then come to others. That is precisely what Paul explains in 3.25–29,

But faith having come, we are no longer under a guardian. For you all are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus. And if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise. (Gal. 3.25–29)

According to Paul, faith in Christ makes people ‘sons of God’, ‘Abraham’s seed’, and ‘heirs according to promise’. The Galatians are no longer slaves but sons and heirs of God, having received adoption through faith in Jesus (4.4–7).

More particularly, the reason that the Galatians have become heirs and adopted sons of God (and Abraham) is that faith so closely identifies and unites them with the true ‘seed’ of Abraham, Jesus Christ, such that everything that belongs to him also belongs to them (also Dunn 1993: 208). It is because they are ‘of Christ’ that they are Abraham’s offspring and heirs of the promise (3.29). Or in the language of 3.27, it is because they have ‘put on Christ’. We will see in the next section, too, that structurally, ‘putting on Christ’ in v. 27 is equivalent to ‘through faith’ in v. 26. In other words, in the argument of chapter 3, ‘putting on Christ’ is a vivid metaphor that describes taking hold of Christ by faith in such a way that the believer’s identity and status is subsumed in Christ and his person, with the result that all that belongs to him by virtue of God’s promise to Abraham belongs to the believer.

Although in other parts of the NT, ‘putting on/clothing oneself’ frequently has ongoing moral significance (e.g., Rom. 13.14; Eph. 4.20–24; Col. 3.9–12), here the primary focus is on the initial act of faith by which believers take hold of Christ, are joined with him, and become heirs with him (e.g., Bruce 1982: 186). It is in that initial act that believers come to share in the promise that properly belongs to Christ, the seed.

Nevertheless, within the broader argument of Galatians, the initial and ongoing significance of faith are not mutually exclusive. Paul’s concern in chapter 3 is to show that the way one begins the Christian life is also the way that one continues it (Gal. 3.1–3). So, while the initial act of faith brings people into living communion with Christ, the continued exercise of faith transforms them as they appropriate more and more of the power of Christ’s life. ³⁰ As Paul notes earlier, it is not he himself who lives, but Christ who lives in him (Gal. 2.20).

Paul’s carefully reasoned point in Galatians 3, and Galatians as a whole, is that sonship, justification, and the inheritance of the Spirit do not come through circumcision but through identification with Jesus by faith or, in other words, ‘putting on Christ’. ³¹ Moreover, the Christian continues in the Christian life in the same way they began—through faith and in the power of the promised Spirit. They continue by continuing to ‘put on Christ’ by faith. Importantly, too, both the continuous nature and also the fact that it is an action taken by the believer rather than an action that they receive imply that ‘putting on Christ’ is less the once-for-all event of union with Christ and more the initial and ongoing act of faith in Christ by which Christ and all his benefits are appropriated. ³²

The Meaning of Gal. 3.27

What, then, is the meaning of Gal. 3.27? Moreover, how does baptism fit into his argument? And why does it appear almost from nowhere?

Interestingly, Paul uses a very similar construction to the one in 3.27 earlier in Galatians 3 when he begins his argument about true Abrahamic sonship. He writes,

Ὅσοι γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσίν, ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν·

For as many are from the works of the law are under a curse. . . . (Gal. 3.10)

In comparison, 3.27 says,

ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε

For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. . . .

There are good reasons for believing that these verses form a pair. ³³ That is clear not only from their similar structure but also from the context of both verses. In vv. 7 and 9, Paul begins his discussion of Abrahamic sonship—‘those of faith, these are sons of Abraham’ and ‘those of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham’. Similarly, in vv. 26–29, Paul returns to that theme and rounds out his discussion, showing that all believers are ‘sons of God’, ‘Abraham’s seed’, and ‘heirs according to promise’.

We can now examine the logic of Paul’s comments in 3.23–29. Paul writes,

Πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν ὑπὸ νόμον ἐφρουρούμεθα συγκλειόμενοι εἰς τὴν μέλλουσαν πίστιν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι,

 ὥστε ὁ νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν,

 ἵνα ἐκ πίστεως δικαιωθῶμεν·

ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς πίστεως οὐκέτι ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν ἐσμεν.

 Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·

 ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε.

 οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ    θῆλυ·

 πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ, ἄρα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ, κατʼ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι.

But before faith came, we were detained under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith was revealed.

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ,

in order that we might be justified by faith.

But faith having come, we are no longer under a guardian.

For you all are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus.

And if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.

Paul, here, is directly addressing the situation mentioned in 3.10. In 3.10, all who are ‘from the law’ are ‘under a curse’. Likewise, in v. 23, ‘we were detained under the law’ until faith. However, now that faith has come, we are no longer ‘under a guardian’ (v. 25). Paul then gives three parallel reasons why they are no longer under the curse of the guardianship of the law and why they are true heirs. First, ‘you all are sons of God through faith’. Second, ‘as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ’. And third, ‘you all are one in Christ Jesus’. These three reasons are roughly parallel. That is clear in several ways.

In the first place, in both v. 26 and v. 28, πάντες is the subject of the verb. In v. 27, however, πάντες is absent. In its place is ὅσοι … εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε (cf. Barth 2004: 4:115). Nevertheless, like πάντες in vv. 26 and 28, the A clause of v. 27 also serves to delimit the implicit subject (‘you’) of the main verb, which in v. 27 is ἐνεδύσασθε rather than ἐστε. ³⁴ In other words, linguistically, ὅσοι … εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε performs the same function as πάντες in vv. 26 and 27 (cf. Soards and Pursiful 2015: 171; Meiser 2022: 178).

Particularly interesting, too, is the parallelism between the first part of reason 2 (ὅσοι … εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε) and the first part of reason 3 (οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες … ὑμεῖς). In the latter, the string of οὐκ ἔνι clauses stands in apposition to πάντες. Paul’s various negations delimit the breadth of πάντες. That is, ‘all’ includes (by negation) Jew and Greek, slave and free, and male and female. Importantly, though, the fact that Paul uses an expanded clause in reason 3 to express ‘all’ supports the notion that the whole of the clause in v. 27a (ὅσοι … Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε) is similarly expressing the idea of ‘all’ (cf. Betz 1979: 186; contra Mußner 2002: 262; Moo 2013: 251).

Finally, although Longenecker (1990: 155) suggests that the parallelism between πάντες in v. 26 and ὅσοι in v. 27 implies a corresponding parallelism between διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ in v. 26 and εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε in v. 27, the structure we have outlined previously suggests quite the opposite. Since πάντες parallels the whole of ὅσοι … εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, as a result, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε parallels the entirety of υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ in v. 26 (and ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ in v. 28). The implication is that putting on Christ is equivalent to sonship through faith.

Significantly, that implies that in 3.27 baptism is not the mechanism by which the Galatians have put on Christ. The mention of baptism is simply there to express extent. That is, ‘as many of you as were baptised’ is simply functioning as an expression to capture the totality of the Galatian church—all of them have put on Christ (or at least, as many as had been baptised). ³⁵

This matches with what we have seen with ὅσος more generally. That is, it primarily refers to the co-extensivity of the two groups. In other words, ‘as many of you as were baptised’ is equivalent to ‘all of those in the Galatian church’. ³⁶ Nevertheless, it is also the case that ὅσος describes here a situation-response relationship—those who have been baptised that have also put on Christ.

What, then, is Paul’s point in 3.23–29? His point is that their sonship and participation in the inheritance promised to Abraham comes not through circumcision but through faith in Christ. The three reason clauses all press toward that same end. Finally, Paul reaffirms the point in v. 29, ‘And if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise’. It is by belonging to Christ and being identified with Christ through faith that one becomes an heir of the promise to Abraham. Circumcision finds its fulfilment in the person of Christ to whom it pointed. And participation in those promises comes by faith in Jesus, the promised ‘seed’ (Deenick 2018: 201–8).

Recognising the above point helps to deal with what is otherwise a peculiarity in a means-end view of v. 27. As Moo (2013: 251) notes, ‘What is somewhat surprising is the shift from faith as a means of union with Christ in verse 26 to baptism in verse 27’. But the foregoing analysis of ὅσος and the structure of theses verses shows that is not the case at all. Rather, Paul’s emphasis does not shift but remains wholly on faith. That is, understanding ὅσος as articulating a means-end relationship requires that Paul is making a shift from faith, as the basis of inclusion in the promises received in Christ, to baptism. A situation-response understanding of ὅσος, however, allows the emphasis to remain on faith.

Moreover, a means-end relationship between baptism and putting on Christ puts Paul’s view of baptism entirely at odds with everything that he is seeking to deny about circumcision. Paul is seeking to demonstrate that the relationship between salvation and circumcision was not, and still is not, a relationship whereby circumcision is the means to the end of salvation (George 2020: 308). Rather, Paul’s view of circumcision, and the broader biblical understanding, is that faith is the response to circumcision.

Likewise, a proper understanding of the function of ὅσος shows that Paul’s introduction of baptism is best understood in the same way: baptism is not the means by which salvation is received; rather, faith is the proper response to baptism. If baptism was the response to putting on Christ by faith, then Paul would have needed to switch the two clauses around: ‘as many as have put on Christ have been baptised’. The Galatians were heirs of Christ not because of their baptism but because they had actually responded to that baptism with faith. ³⁷

That idea is not a NT development but is present in the OT as well. As I have argued (Deenick 2018: 211–17), circumcision was the sign that through a promised ‘seed’ of Abraham, God would save for himself a people who would walk before him blamelessly. Participation in that promise came not through circumcision but through faith in that promise. Those who had been circumcised were not simply, by virtue of that fact, ‘sons of Abraham’. Rather, they needed to appropriate the promise emblematised in circumcision by receiving that promise in their heart by faith. That faith appropriation of the promise is what the OT calls ‘circumcision of the heart’ (e.g. Deut. 10.16). Paul, in Galatians, simply reiterates that point.

But importantly, Paul is careful not to allow a wrong view of circumcision to be replaced with a wrong view of baptism. Just as what mattered in the OT era was not circumcision, per se, but faith, the same is true with regard to baptism in the NT. It is not through baptism that one becomes an heir of the promise to Abraham. The placement of baptism in the ‘all’ clause ensures that Paul’s emphasis does not land on baptism at all but on faith. In fact, the placement of baptism explicitly relativises it: the Galatians were not heirs of God’s promise because they have been baptised; rather, they are sons of God because, ‘as many as were baptised, have [actually] put on Christ by faith’. That is, in Paul’s view, baptism is not the ‘capstone’ of a person coming to Christ, as Moo (2013: 251) suggests. Instead, faith in Christ is the ‘capstone’ or completion of baptism. ³⁸

As we have seen, the normal relationship between the A and B clauses of ὅσος expressions, together with an examination of Paul’s argument in Galatians 3, suggests that Paul expects faith to follow baptism. In Paul’s view, faith is the completion of baptism rather than baptism the completion (or testimony) of faith. Such an observation does not immediately clarify the temporal relationship between faith and baptism. But it does imply that faith can, and must, come after baptism.

Implications for Understanding Baptism

This understanding of Gal. 3.27 has some significant implications for our understanding of the relationship between faith and baptism. Implicitly, it rules out any ex opere operato view of baptism, since putting on Christ is not something that takes place in baptism but rather through faith, and that faith is seen as a response to baptism. But neither, then, is baptism the capstone of faith or the part standing in for the whole of the conversion-initiation process. Instead, Paul shows that what matters to him is that those who have been baptised respond to that by putting on Christ by faith. In Paul’s view, faith is the completion of baptism rather than baptism the completion (or testimony) of faith, just as it was for circumcision. It is not baptism that responds to faith, but faith that responds to baptism.