So far, Tim does a pretty good job bringing out heart dynamics a la Jack Miller, but he is still dismissive of new scholarship on Galatians emphasizing the contextual nature of the letter. Through chapter 2, he has missed a lot of details in the text, even if he has done a decent job re-contextualized the message into our context.
He still is pretty driven by a Lutheran "works-righteousness" reading of Judaism, though, which is problematic.
For someone as missiologically informed as Tim Keller, I would have expected a more careful delineation between our contemporary Christian reading of Judaism (which, from the perspective of the cross of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit, recognizes returning to Judaism as a failure to remain faithful to YHWH, and thus can somewhat fairly call the judaizing gospel "works righteousness") and a reading of Judaism from 1st century, which wouldn't have been wrestling with works-righteousness but with wrestling to understand what remained at the center of their identity as YHWH's people, given the new situation of Jesus's resurrection & the emergence of his church.
The Jewish Christians weren't trying to earn their way into God's favor; Torah was God's *grace* to them. Paul was trying not to argue that they were being legalists, but that they hadn't fully understood JESUS. They hadn't actually gone all the way in embracing who Jesus was and how he fulfilled Israel in God's redemptive purposes, so that they could no longer go back towards defining Israel in the old way. Jesus was now the way Israel was defined. In other words, Paul is saying that the Jewish Christians weren't taking JESUS seriously; Jesus was placed within their old covenantal-nomistic system. Law was primary, not Jesus. Paul wants to show them that Jesus is the conclusion of Israel's story,. and that because of that, Jewish practices are no longer necessary for being included among God's covenant people.
// after reading: very disappointed. I usually find Keller so illuminating, especially when he is writing topically. His exegesis of Biblical text, here, was constrained by systematic-theological categories that he was reading into the text. Though I always appreciate his way of pastorally drawing out heart-motivation implications of the good news, this book is essentially that - a psychologized reading of Galatians, which in the end, I think, fails to do justice to the real occasion and purpose of the letter. It jumps too quickly past the original contextual meaning of the letter to try to address contemporary audiences & by doing so misses the deeper point of Galatians.