NT Overview - Ethnicity and Galatians
Lesson 3: Ethnicity and Galatians
Ethnic identity - Review
Ethnic identity - Asano
Ethnic identity and community-identity construction
Community-identity construction
Overview of Galatians
The occasion of the letter was Paul’s receiving news of people who had visited his Galatian mission-field and were persuading his converts there to accept a different form of teaching from that which he had given them. He refers to these people as ‘trouble-makers’ (ταράσσοντες, 1:7; 5:10) or ‘agitators’ (ἀναστατοῦντες, 5:12). According to the information reaching Paul, they were trying to impose on the Galatian Christians some requirements of the Jewish law, preeminently circumcision; there is also some word of observance of special days, presumably those of the Jewish sacred calendar (4:10). It might have been expected that Jewish food-restrictions would also have figured in the new teaching; if so, Paul makes no reference to their doing so, although insisting on those food-restrictions by some Christians is implied in his account of Peter’s withdrawal from table-fellowship with Gentiles at Antioch (2:11–14).
The new teaching is denounced by Paul as a perversion of the true gospel of Christ (1:7), and the Galatian Christians who pay heed to it are warned that to submit to it is to turn away from God (1:6), to be severed from Christ, to fall from grace (5:4). The trouble-makers are incurring a curse because they substitute a spurious message for gospel truth (1:8f.); they are exposing themselves to certainty of divine judgment (5:10). Even if they demand only a token measure of law-keeping from the Galatians, any such demand involves acceptance of the principle of justification by works of the law. This principle is clean contrary to the gospel of justification by faith—even if it were practicable, which it is not (3:11). Persuasive as the new teaching may be, it does not come from God (5:8), as did the original message which brought salvation to the members of the Galatian churches (1:6); the two are incompatible.
It is clearly implied, however, that the ‘trouble-makers’ tried to gain credence for their teaching among Paul’s converts by disparaging him and casting doubt on his apostolic credentials. In consequence, the Galatians who lent a ready ear to his teaching had a sense of estrangement from Paul, not to speak of hostility to him (4:16)—the fruit of an uneasy conscience.
Audience
What must also be borne in mind is that since the Roman province of Galatia included many different tribes and peoples and not just the descendents of the Celts or Gauls, the only term which could be predicated of all of them in Paul’s day would be Galatians. He could not for instance call them Phrygians or Lycaonians if he had evangelized a cross section of the residents of this Roman province.
There is no internal evidence in Paul’s letter to the Galatians to settle who Paul particularly has in mind when he speaks to and of the Galatians, and so the debate has centered on several passages in Acts, in particular Acts 16:6 and Acts 18:23. Several factors must be taken into consideration when evaluating these texts. Firstly, while Paul does normally use Roman provincial designations (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 16:15 and 19), Luke seems to use mainly the local and ethnic terminology. Secondly, if one gives at least some credence to the itineraries of Paul’s journeys in Acts, in this case the itineraries for the second and third missionary journeys, it is in order to point out that there is no clear evidence even in Acts that Paul ever evangelized the cities of the northern part of Galatia. At most there might be a reference to his passing through the region and strengthening existing converts in the area, but even this conclusion is doubtful.
In closing this part of the discussion it is important to note that everything in Galatians suggests that the majority, perhaps the vast majority, of Paul’s Galatian converts are Gentiles not Jews, otherwise all these arguments about not submitting to circumcision would not be on target.
One must also make sense of the fact that Paul feels he can use an elaborate Jewish allegory in Gal. 4 and arguments about covenants and Abraham and the development of salvation history to convince them not to listen to or follow the teaching of the agitators. In short, Paul is using Jewish arguments to convince Gentiles not to become more Jewish! This too suggests an audience conversant with Judaism and perhaps the basic lineaments of the Hebrew Scriptures as well. All of this is understandable if Acts 13–14 is right that Paul’s standard operating procedure when he was in the province of Galatia was to preach in the synagogue first until he was thrust out, and that his converts, both Jewish and Gentile came out of that Jewish matrix (cf. Acts 13:43, 48; 14:1). In other words, Galatians would be a word on target if his audience already knew a good deal about Judaism and the Hebrew Scriptures, it would be a word on target if he is in the main addressing God-fearers. It would be less apt if the Gentiles he is worried about had had no association with or knowledge of Judaism prior to Paul’s arrival in Galatia.
The dating of the letter in the context of Acts will depend partly on whether the addressees are regarded as ‘South Galatians’ or ‘North Galatians’. If they were South Galatians, then the letter could conceivably have been written any time after the end of the missionary expedition related in Acts 13:4–14:26; if, on the other hand, they were North Galatians, it must have been written after the journey summarized in Acts 16:6, when Paul ‘went through the Phrygian and Galatic region’
A comparative study of Galatians alongside those Pauline letters which can be more certainly dated is not decisive for the dating of this letter. But nothing in such a comparative study prohibits our giving Galatians a place quite early among the Pauline letters, if an early place appears probable on other grounds. When, as we are told in Acts 15:1, Judaean visitors came to Syrian Antioch and started to teach the Christians there that those who were not circumcised in accordance with the law of Moses could not be saved, it is antecedently probable that others who wished to press the same line visited the recently formed daughter-churches of Antioch, not only in Syria and Cilicia, as the apostolic letter indicates (Acts 15:23), but also in South Galatia. If so, then the letter to the Galatians was written as soon as Paul got news of what was afoot, on the eve of the Jerusalem meeting described in Acts 15:6ff. This, it is suggested, would yield the most satisfactory correlation of the data of Galatians and Acts and the most satisfactory dating of Galatians. It must be conceded that, if this is so, Galatians is the earliest among the extant letters of Paul.56 I know of no evidence to make this conclusion impossible, or even improbable. Even on this early dating, Paul had been a Christian for at least fifteen years, and the main outlines of his understanding of the gospel, which took shape from his Damascus-road p 56 experience, would have been as well defined by then as they were ever likely to be. Galatians, whatever its date, is a most important document of primitive Christianity, but if it is the earliest extant Christian document, its importance is enhanced.
The whole issue hangs for most to a decisive degree on the relation between Galatians and Acts. Acts speaks of Paul’s passing through ‘Galatia’ on subsequent missionary trips (Acts 16:6 and 18:23), and in the former reference the implication is clear that ‘Phrygia and Galatia’ are distinct from the cities named earlier (Derbe and Lystra at least, referred to in 16:1–5).2 That also implies that for Luke (the author of Acts) ‘Galatia’ refers to ethnic Galatia. If this correlates with Paul’s usage, then Paul cannot be referring to the churches established on ‘the first missionary journey’ and must be referring to those initially established in the mission indicated in 16:6.3 For obvious reasons this view is usually named ‘the north Galatian hypothesis’.4
Alternatively, we need not assume that Paul’s and Luke’s usages were mutually compatible. ‘Galatia’ and ‘Galatians’ were quite proper designations of the towns in the south of the Roman province and of their inhabitants. And it is difficult to see what p 7 other single designation could embrace all four towns: Iconium, Lystra and Derbe belonged to Lycaonia; but Antioch would be more properly designated as in Pisidia. ‘The south Galatian hypothesis’ therefore identifies the Galatians with the churches established by Paul in these towns during ‘the first missionary journey’.1
Much ink has been spilt over the relationship between the meeting described in Galatians 2:1–10 and the one Luke describes in Acts 15. Probably the majority of scholars think these are two different accounts of the same meeting. It then becomes very difficult to explain why it is that Paul nowhere in Galatians mentions the decision of the Jerusalem Council in support of his rejection of the suggestion by the agitators that his Galatian converts be circumcised, nor for that matter does he mention citing the Decree when he opposed Peter to his face over the matter of table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles.
The discussion in Gal. 2:1–14 is about events that transpired in Antioch and in places visited on Paul’s first missionary journey which were then further discussed in Jerusalem—events involving Peter, Barnabas, Paul, and the Judaizers. For what it is worth, the main discussion in Acts of the Antioch church comes in Acts 11 not in Acts 15, and Peter is a prominent player in Acts 10–12, while Acts 13–14 records the first missionary journey which also transpires before the Acts 15 council. Then too, Peter is not portrayed as a major figure after Acts 15. The Judaizers appear in Acts 15:1 and 5. The point I am making is that the configuration of prominent figures and events mentioned in both Gal. 2 and Acts, all occur in portions of Acts that precede the decree in Acts 15, indeed all occur in the material that immediately precedes the Jerusalem Conference.
Another crucial point in evaluating this matter is that the incident in Antioch, according to Paul in Gal. 2, is in fact over table fellowship, not circumcision. This comports with the earlier discussions recorded in Acts 10–11, but less well with the later discussions in Acts 15 where the circumcision issue is settled and a different kind of food and fellowship is discussed, namely food and fellowship in pagan temples.
Author
The self-image he projects is in service of the message (the gospel) he wants his readers to hear. Paul ‘presents his “autobiography” as a paradigm of the gospel of Christian freedom … (and) considers himself in some sense a representative or even an embodiment of that gospel’
Paul ‘presents his “autobiography” as a paradigm of the gospel of Christian freedom … (and) considers himself in some sense a representative or even an embodiment of that gospel’.
What we see, then, or are given by Paul to see, in summary, is a man who was a Christian Jew, but with a commission from God to take the good news of Christ to the Gentiles. The tension between Paul’s past (as a zealot and persecutor) and present (as evangelist and apologist for the church he once sought to destroy) is also the tension of the letter. The tension between Paul’s commission as standing within the tradition of Israel’s prophet commissionings, but as a commission to the Gentiles, is also the tension of the letter. The tension between Paul and the Jerusalem leadership is also the tension of the letter. It was precisely as a Jew who was also apostle to the Gentiles, that Paul wrote. It was precisely as a Jew who rejoiced in the blessing and inheritance of Abraham, but who now saw it to be integral to that blessing and inheritance that they are for Gentiles as well, that he pleads and warns so fervently. It was precisely in defence of his own inheritance as an Israelite, its fundamental character and richest blessing, that he fights so fiercely to maintain that character and blessing for Gentile as well as for Jew.
Agitators
What must also be borne in mind is that since the Roman province of Galatia included many different tribes and peoples and not just the descendents of the Celts or Gauls, the only term which could be predicated of all of them in Paul’s day would be Galatians. He could not for instance call them Phrygians or Lycaonians if he had evangelized a cross section of the residents of this Roman province.
There is no internal evidence in Paul’s letter to the Galatians to settle who Paul particularly has in mind when he speaks to and of the Galatians, and so the debate has centered on several passages in Acts, in particular Acts 16:6 and Acts 18:23. Several factors must be taken into consideration when evaluating these texts. Firstly, while Paul does normally use Roman provincial designations (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 16:15 and 19), Luke seems to use mainly the local and ethnic terminology. Secondly, if one gives at least some credence to the itineraries of Paul’s journeys in Acts, in this case the itineraries for the second and third missionary journeys, it is in order to point out that there is no clear evidence even in Acts that Paul ever evangelized the cities of the northern part of Galatia. At most there might be a reference to his passing through the region and strengthening existing converts in the area, but even this conclusion is doubtful.
In closing this part of the discussion it is important to note that everything in Galatians suggests that the majority, perhaps the vast majority, of Paul’s Galatian converts are Gentiles not Jews, otherwise all these arguments about not submitting to circumcision would not be on target.
One must also make sense of the fact that Paul feels he can use an elaborate Jewish allegory in Gal. 4 and arguments about covenants and Abraham and the development of salvation history to convince them not to listen to or follow the teaching of the agitators. In short, Paul is using Jewish arguments to convince Gentiles not to become more Jewish! This too suggests an audience conversant with Judaism and perhaps the basic lineaments of the Hebrew Scriptures as well. All of this is understandable if Acts 13–14 is right that Paul’s standard operating procedure when he was in the province of Galatia was to preach in the synagogue first until he was thrust out, and that his converts, both Jewish and Gentile came out of that Jewish matrix (cf. Acts 13:43, 48; 14:1). In other words, Galatians would be a word on target if his audience already knew a good deal about Judaism and the Hebrew Scriptures, it would be a word on target if he is in the main addressing God-fearers. It would be less apt if the Gentiles he is worried about had had no association with or knowledge of Judaism prior to Paul’s arrival in Galatia.
The dating of the letter in the context of Acts will depend partly on whether the addressees are regarded as ‘South Galatians’ or ‘North Galatians’. If they were South Galatians, then the letter could conceivably have been written any time after the end of the missionary expedition related in Acts 13:4–14:26; if, on the other hand, they were North Galatians, it must have been written after the journey summarized in Acts 16:6, when Paul ‘went through the Phrygian and Galatic region’
A comparative study of Galatians alongside those Pauline letters which can be more certainly dated is not decisive for the dating of this letter. But nothing in such a comparative study prohibits our giving Galatians a place quite early among the Pauline letters, if an early place appears probable on other grounds. When, as we are told in Acts 15:1, Judaean visitors came to Syrian Antioch and started to teach the Christians there that those who were not circumcised in accordance with the law of Moses could not be saved, it is antecedently probable that others who wished to press the same line visited the recently formed daughter-churches of Antioch, not only in Syria and Cilicia, as the apostolic letter indicates (Acts 15:23), but also in South Galatia. If so, then the letter to the Galatians was written as soon as Paul got news of what was afoot, on the eve of the Jerusalem meeting described in Acts 15:6ff. This, it is suggested, would yield the most satisfactory correlation of the data of Galatians and Acts and the most satisfactory dating of Galatians. It must be conceded that, if this is so, Galatians is the earliest among the extant letters of Paul.56 I know of no evidence to make this conclusion impossible, or even improbable. Even on this early dating, Paul had been a Christian for at least fifteen years, and the main outlines of his understanding of the gospel, which took shape from his Damascus-road p 56 experience, would have been as well defined by then as they were ever likely to be. Galatians, whatever its date, is a most important document of primitive Christianity, but if it is the earliest extant Christian document, its importance is enhanced.
The whole issue hangs for most to a decisive degree on the relation between Galatians and Acts. Acts speaks of Paul’s passing through ‘Galatia’ on subsequent missionary trips (Acts 16:6 and 18:23), and in the former reference the implication is clear that ‘Phrygia and Galatia’ are distinct from the cities named earlier (Derbe and Lystra at least, referred to in 16:1–5).2 That also implies that for Luke (the author of Acts) ‘Galatia’ refers to ethnic Galatia. If this correlates with Paul’s usage, then Paul cannot be referring to the churches established on ‘the first missionary journey’ and must be referring to those initially established in the mission indicated in 16:6.3 For obvious reasons this view is usually named ‘the north Galatian hypothesis’.4
Alternatively, we need not assume that Paul’s and Luke’s usages were mutually compatible. ‘Galatia’ and ‘Galatians’ were quite proper designations of the towns in the south of the Roman province and of their inhabitants. And it is difficult to see what p 7 other single designation could embrace all four towns: Iconium, Lystra and Derbe belonged to Lycaonia; but Antioch would be more properly designated as in Pisidia. ‘The south Galatian hypothesis’ therefore identifies the Galatians with the churches established by Paul in these towns during ‘the first missionary journey’.1
Much ink has been spilt over the relationship between the meeting described in Galatians 2:1–10 and the one Luke describes in Acts 15. Probably the majority of scholars think these are two different accounts of the same meeting. It then becomes very difficult to explain why it is that Paul nowhere in Galatians mentions the decision of the Jerusalem Council in support of his rejection of the suggestion by the agitators that his Galatian converts be circumcised, nor for that matter does he mention citing the Decree when he opposed Peter to his face over the matter of table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles.
The discussion in Gal. 2:1–14 is about events that transpired in Antioch and in places visited on Paul’s first missionary journey which were then further discussed in Jerusalem—events involving Peter, Barnabas, Paul, and the Judaizers. For what it is worth, the main discussion in Acts of the Antioch church comes in Acts 11 not in Acts 15, and Peter is a prominent player in Acts 10–12, while Acts 13–14 records the first missionary journey which also transpires before the Acts 15 council. Then too, Peter is not portrayed as a major figure after Acts 15. The Judaizers appear in Acts 15:1 and 5. The point I am making is that the configuration of prominent figures and events mentioned in both Gal. 2 and Acts, all occur in portions of Acts that precede the decree in Acts 15, indeed all occur in the material that immediately precedes the Jerusalem Conference.
Another crucial point in evaluating this matter is that the incident in Antioch, according to Paul in Gal. 2, is in fact over table fellowship, not circumcision. This comports with the earlier discussions recorded in Acts 10–11, but less well with the later discussions in Acts 15 where the circumcision issue is settled and a different kind of food and fellowship is discussed, namely food and fellowship in pagan temples.
Agitators
Firstly, it is not at all clear that we should simply identify the ‘men who came from James’ in Gal. 2:12 with the false believers referred to in Gal. 2:4
Secondly, it is even less clear that the men who came from James are also those who are bewitching the Galatians, though the false believers mentioned in Gal. 2:4 might well be the agitators.
Another point of importance is that close scrutiny of Galatians suggests that Paul does not know precisely who it is that is troubling the Galatians. We must take very seriously the question in 3:1—‘Who has bewitched you?’ As well as the further question in 5:7—‘who prevented you from obeying the truth?’ Consider also the remark in 5:10—‘Whoever it is that is confusing you will pay the price’.
To sum up, it seems reasonable and probable that the agitators in Galatia were Jewish Christians who wanted the Galatians to be circumcised and follow at least some of the Law, in particular its ritual aspects. This brought the adequacy of Paul’s Gospel into direct question. It seems probable, due to the prominence of the mention of Jerusalem at various points, that these agitators had connections with the Jerusalem church, and it is also very believable that the agitators had used certain Scriptural arguments having to do with Abraham among other subjects to persuade the Galatians.
Paul distinguishes between the pillar apostles, some of whom may have been guilty of errors of judgment but whom Paul is not prepared to call false brothers or spies. It also seems probable that we must distinguish between the agitators in Galatia and the ‘men who came from James’ although one could argue that the latter came to Antioch and exceeded the limits of what James sent them to do.
In Paul’s view it amounts to ‘another Gospel’ (1:8), one contrary to the one Paul had first preached among the Galatians.
In particular someone has advocated that the Gentile Galatians needed to be circumcised (5:2), and apparently also to observe special days and seasons and years in the Jewish calendar (4:10).
Moreover, it is equally clear that the ‘troublemakers’ were also Christians, or at least saw themselves as such. Or if the term ‘Christian’ imports a sharpness of definition which is anachronistic, we should simply say that the ‘troublemakers’ saw themselves as believers in Messiah Jesus and followers of his ‘way’ (cf. Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14, 22), and, presumably having been baptized in Jesus’ name, were regarded by others as fellow believers.
In short, the letter makes clearest and fullest sense if we see it as a response to a challenge from Christian-Jewish missionaries who had come to Galatia to improve or correct Paul’s gospel and to ‘complete’ his converts by integrating them fully into the heirs of Abraham through circumcision and by thus bringing them ‘under the law’.
Social Setting
Famines were not uncommon, but food crises were even more common and in fact can be said to have been of a chronic nature in the mid-first century A.D. and regularly affected various parts of the Mediterranean world.95 This helps to explain the request in Gal. 2:10 and Paul’s eagerness to respond to the request. By means of collecting for famine relief and giving it to the poor in the Judean church, Paul and his co-workers would set up a reciprocity situation and a social network that would implicitly suggest the acceptance of the Pauline largely Gentile churches by the mother church. This larger aim is something Paul clearly desired (cf. 1 Cor. 16:1–3; 2 Cor. 8–9). In this way, not only Paul would have a social network and koinonia with the Jerusalem Church but so also would his congregations.
A second social issue that may inform our reading of Galatians is the state and status of Jews in Roman colonies in Asia Minor, especially in light of the expulsion of Jews and apparently Jewish Christians from Rome in A.D. 49 (cf. Acts 18). Were the Jews in Asia Minor in A.D. 49 feeling marginalized enough that any attempts at proselytism pointed in their direction or the very existence of a local Christian congregation which had led people out of the synagogue was likely to be met with a hostile response by at least some?
These references certainly comport with the picture painted in Acts 13–14 in which Paul and his co-workers are attacked by some Jews from the synagogue, particularly in Pisidian Antioch and in Iconium. Galatians suggests this was an ongoing problem and that apparently the agitators were seeking to solve it by appeasement, by making the Christian community follow Jewish practices to stop the persecution.
Another social factor that may have come into play is the increasing pressure brought to bear throughout the Empire by the cult of the Emperor.
One possible solution to this problem would be to claim that the church was the true Israel of God (see Gal. 6:16) a claim that non-Christian Jews might have been prepared to resist even with violence, or alternatively Christians could ‘Judaize’, practicing circumcision and the like so that it would appear clear that Christians were Jews, and thus there would be no social pressure or persecution if they did not participate in the Imperial Cult.
It is believable that the Judaizers were offering the Galatians a way out of observing the Imperial cult’s calendar, by substituting the Jewish calendrical celebrations, which would be seen as a legitimate substitute and would not cause Gentile Galatian Christians to lose all their status and standing in Galatian society, as would participating in a novel unsanctioned superstitio like ‘Gentile Pauline Christianity’.
Clearly enough Paul’s authority rested on his claim that God had singled him out for a particular mission, and the evidence that his preaching was blessed by God as evidenced by conversions, miracles, the presence of spiritual gifts. His authority did not arise from his connection with Jesus’ family or with the Twelve. This was not problematic when Paul was venturing into new mission territory or relating to his own converts, but it apparently was problematic when Paul tried to relate to other leaders in early Christianity, and particularly those who had ties with Jesus’ family or were members of the Twelve or of the Jerusalem church. Paul was never a regular participant in the Jerusalem church, and though he was known to its leaders and perhaps in some of the house churches in Jerusalem itself that he had persecuted years before, we must take very seriously the fact that Paul says his face was not familiar in the Judean churches (1:22).106 It is difficult to have ‘face’ in such congregations when one’s face is unknown, or possibly feared even several years after one’s conversion.
P. Esler, “Making and Breaking an Agreement Mediterranean Style: A New Reading of Galatians 2:1–14,” Biblical Interpretation 3 (1995), pp. 285–314.
Lesson 4:
‘Works of the law’ therefore was probably used initially in a polemical context (as with several other of the phrases used here—see on 2:14 and 15), to denote particularly those obligations of the law which were reckoned especially crucial in the maintenance of covenant righteousness, in the maintenance of an individual Jew’s status within the covenant. In principle that meant all that the law required. But in practice the faithfulness of the sectarian was determined by his demonstration of loyalty to the sect’s distinctive interpretations of the law on disputed points. So too in second-Temple Judaism at large. ‘Works of the law’ would mean in principle all that the faithful Israelite had to do as a member of the chosen people, that is, as distinct from ‘Gentile sinners’. But in practice there were a number of test cases, several specific laws which in the history of earliest Judaism had brought the issue of covenant loyalty to clear decision, boundary issues where the distinctiveness of Jew from Gentile was most at stake. Two have already been mentioned—circumcision and food laws (see on 2:3 and 2:12). Evidently these two in particular had been ‘make or break’ issues for Jewish identity and covenant faithfulness since the Maccabean crisis. It should occasion no surprise, then, that it had been just these two issues which had dominated the immediately preceding context in Gal. 2 (circumcision—2:1–10; food laws—2:11–14), for these were precisely the test cases of Jewish distinctiveness over against Gentiles which were in danger of splitting the Jesus movement.
Verifying the Gospel
He would be presenting Titus as a test case to the leaders of the Jerusalem church. As things turned out, however, Paul had not reckoned on the presence of ‘false brothers’ at the meeting and they took the presence of Titus as a provocation, an honor challenge, to which they must respond in kind or give up their own views. The ‘pillars’ basic ruling was in Paul’s favor, which meant in an agonistic culture that the ‘false brothers’ had been shamed and would have to respond to save face.
This narratio then is an attempt to clarify Paul’s ethos. Paul’s character and the character of the Gospel he preaches and embodies come from the same source—God through Christ. Therefore, the Galatians should listen closely to the acts of persuasion that are about to follow before they walk down the wrong path rather than walking in and by the Spirit.
This narratio then is an attempt to clarify Paul’s ethos. Paul’s character and the character of the Gospel he preaches and embodies come from the same source—God through Christ. Therefore
Vindicating the prototype
they will attempt to impose the Mosaic Law upon his Gentile converts or else say that Gentiles cannot have fellowship (in particular table fellowship) with Jewish Christians. In short they want a church that is either united in the strict observance of the Mosaic Law, and so a church that is seen as part of Judaism, or else two churches. To neither of these options will Paul accede.
It is probable that in vs. 4b we get a glimpse of the heart of the message Paul laid before the Jerusalem authorities—the freedom which we have in Jesus Christ.
they will attempt to impose the Mosaic Law upon his Gentile converts or else say that Gentiles cannot have fellowship (in particular table fellowship) with Jewish Christians. In short they want a church that is either united in the strict observance of the Mosaic Law, and so a church that is seen as part of Judaism, or else two churches. To neither of these options will Paul accede.
It is probable that in vs. 4b we get a glimpse of the heart of the message Paul laid before the Jerusalem authorities—the freedom which we have in Jesus Christ.
He would be presenting Titus as a test case to the leaders of the Jerusalem church. As things turned out, however, Paul had not reckoned on the presence of ‘false brothers’ at the meeting and they took the presence of Titus as a provocation, an honor challenge, to which they must respond in kind or give up their own views. The ‘pillars’ basic ruling was in Paul’s favor, which meant in an agonistic culture that the ‘false brothers’ had been shamed and would have to respond to save face. Paul for his part thinks that the whole matter of face and honor challenges is not merely counterproductive to the aims of the ἐκκλησία but against the essence of the Gospel which is grace. He indicates this is his view in three ways in this section: (1) by distancing himself from the honor ratings that some were bestowing on the pillars; (2) by stressing that God does not accept face, that is, he does not judge matters on the basis of human reciprocity and honor conventions, and pays no heed to human credentials; (3) he stresses that the pillars added nothing to Paul’s personal honor rating or status;123 rather they recognized the unmerited favor given Paul by God. God shows no partiality, and the Gospel of God likewise does not—it is a matter of pure grace. Hence, the ἐκκλησία and its mission should not be ‘showing face’ either in its mission to Jews and Gentiles, or in its own community life to those who had close connections of one sort or another with Jesus before his death. This explains Paul’s dismissive remark about the pillars—‘what they were (i.e., before Easter and seeing the risen Lord) matters nothing to me’. Neither blood ties nor social relationships matter in the Kingdom, but rather grace.124 A few words are in order at this point about agonistic cultures.
He would be presenting Titus as a test case to the leaders of the Jerusalem church. As things turned out, however, Paul had not reckoned on the presence of ‘false brothers’ at the meeting and they took the presence of Titus as a provocation, an honor challenge, to which they must respond in kind or give up their own views. The ‘pillars’ basic ruling was in Paul’s favor, which meant in an agonistic culture that the ‘false brothers’ had been shamed and would have to respond to save face.
they will attempt to impose the Mosaic Law upon his Gentile converts or else say that Gentiles cannot have fellowship (in particular table fellowship) with Jewish Christians. In short they want a church that is either united in the strict observance of the Mosaic Law, and so a church that is seen as part of Judaism, or else two churches. To neither of these options will Paul accede.
It is probable that in vs. 4b we get a glimpse of the heart of the message Paul laid before the Jerusalem authorities—the freedom which we have in Jesus Christ.
The sharpness of Paul’s polemic and the crucial nature of the issues involved are evident in Paul’s contrast between ‘our freedom in Christ Jesus’ and the motive he imputed to the ‘false brothers’ (‘that they might enslave us’). For a Greek readership this was a most emotive chord to strike, since the distinction between slave and free was fundamental in Greek thought and the idealization of freedom was axiomatic in Hellenistic self-perception
Paul sees as at the core of the truth of the Gospel a fundamental commitment to the freedom we have in Christ. That this subject is a major theme in Galatians explains why some have called Galatians the Magna Carta of Christian freedom.
Confirmation from the leaders
He indicates this is his view in three ways in this section: (1) by distancing himself from the honor ratings that some were bestowing on the pillars; (2) by stressing that God does not accept face, that is, he does not judge matters on the basis of human reciprocity and honor conventions, and pays no heed to human credentials; (3) he stresses that the pillars added nothing to Paul’s personal honor rating or status;123 rather they recognized the unmerited favor given Paul by God. God shows no partiality, and the Gospel of God likewise does not—it is a matter of pure grace. Hence, the ἐκκλησία and its mission should not be ‘showing face’ either in its mission to Jews and Gentiles, or in its own community life to those who had close connections of one sort or another with Jesus before his death. This explains Paul’s dismissive remark about the pillars—‘what they were (i.e., before Easter and seeing the risen Lord) matters nothing to me’. Neither blood ties nor social relationships matter in the Kingdom, but rather grace.
He would be presenting Titus as a test case to the leaders of the Jerusalem church. As things turned out, however, Paul had not reckoned on the presence of ‘false brothers’ at the meeting and they took the presence of Titus as a provocation, an honor challenge, to which they must respond in kind or give up their own views. The ‘pillars’ basic ruling was in Paul’s favor, which meant in an agonistic culture that the ‘false brothers’ had been shamed and would have to respond to save face. Paul for his part thinks that the whole matter of face and honor challenges is not merely counterproductive to the aims of the ἐκκλησία but against the essence of the Gospel which is grace. He indicates this is his view in three ways in this section: (1) by distancing himself from the honor ratings that some were bestowing on the pillars; (2) by stressing that God does not accept face, that is, he does not judge matters on the basis of human reciprocity and honor conventions, and pays no heed to human credentials; (3) he stresses that the pillars added nothing to Paul’s personal honor rating or status;123 rather they recognized the unmerited favor given Paul by God. God shows no partiality, and the Gospel of God likewise does not—it is a matter of pure grace. Hence, the ἐκκλησία and its mission should not be ‘showing face’ either in its mission to Jews and Gentiles, or in its own community life to those who had close connections of one sort or another with Jesus before his death. This explains Paul’s dismissive remark about the pillars—‘what they were (i.e., before Easter and seeing the risen Lord) matters nothing to me’. Neither blood ties nor social relationships matter in the Kingdom, but rather grace.124 A few words are in order at this point about agonistic cultures.
Paul for his part thinks that the whole matter of face and honor challenges is not merely counterproductive to the aims of the ἐκκλησία but against the essence of the Gospel which is grace. He indicates this is his view in three ways in this section: (1) by distancing himself from the honor ratings that some were bestowing on the pillars; (2) by stressing that God does not accept face, that is, he does not judge matters on the basis of human reciprocity and honor conventions, and pays no heed to human credentials; (3) he stresses that the pillars added nothing to Paul’s personal honor rating or status;123 rather they recognized the unmerited favor given Paul by God. God shows no partiality, and the Gospel of God likewise does not—it is a matter of pure grace. Hence, the ἐκκλησία and its mission should not be ‘showing face’ either in its mission to Jews and Gentiles, or in its own community life to those who had close connections of one sort or another with Jesus before his death. This explains Paul’s dismissive remark about the pillars—‘what they were (i.e., before Easter and seeing the risen Lord) matters nothing to me’. Neither blood ties nor social relationships matter in the Kingdom, but rather grace.
Confrontation with Peter
by attempting to preserve the integrity of the Jewish Christians as Jews, Cephas destroyed the integrity of Gentile Christians as believers in Christ”.212
What Paul is trying to do is bring out the implications of Peter’s actions for the Gentile Christians whose table fellowship he has now forsaken. If all the Jewish Christians withdraw from having table fellowship with Gentile Christians then, in Paul’s view, the unity of the body of Christ could not be preserved. ‘Separate but equal’ really meant inherently unequal and certainly not united. By withdrawing from Gentile fellowship, Peter was forcing the Gentiles to Judaize if they wanted to continue to have table fellowship with him or other Jewish Christians in Antioch.
Conclusion
For Paul, grace is what breaks the cycle of endless honor challenges or cycles of competition to gain more face than one’s neighbor, or to protect one’s own and one’s family’s honor. Grace is the great equalizer which relativizes the importance of all natural bases for establishing human hierarchies, whether they are based on race, gender, social status, wealth or other factors. In Paul’s view the basic issue is what a person is in Christ and on the basis of grace—namely sons and daughters of God and brothers and sisters of each other. In the Christian community, or as we would say, in the church, Paul carefully tries to tear down and do away with societal values that he sees are at odds with the Gospel.
Paul has established his ethos and identity in Gal. 1–2 as a trustworthy paradigm for his converts to imitate, in contrast to Peter, Barnabas, the agitators, and others. His story since conversion shows, as he is conformed to the image of the crucified Christ, that he embodies the truth of the Gospel, that he models non-factious self-sacrificial behavior.
Practical applications
Appendix I: Comparison of Acts and Galatians
Before we compare Acts and Galatians in regard to the Jerusalem meetings in which Paul participated, it is in order first to address the tendency in Pauline scholarship to treat Galatians as a clear primary source for what happened between Paul and the Jerusalem church and Acts as a decidedly secondary source on these matters. Paul, it is reasoned, was an actual participant in these events. This is true enough but it does not take into account at least three crucial factors:
(1) The rhetorical and tendentious character of Paul’s letters (on which see below) including especially Galatians;
(2) Paul’s comments on these crucial matters are highly selective and on various subjects only offered in passing while at least in Acts we have a direct narrative account by someone who does not seem to have a personal stake in how these particular events are narrated;
(3) The author of Acts intends to be writing good Hellenistic history with some measure of objectivity and claims to have consulted sources including some eyewitnesses (cf. Lk. 1:1–4).
These observations lead to the conclusion that while a slight preference should probably be given to the account in Galatians over what we find in Acts, it would be best to scrutinize critically both sources and see them as of about equal weight in assessing what happened at the Jerusalem Council.
We must at this time assess the usual arguments for the most popular scholarly equation about the Jerusalem meetings, namely that Gal. 2:1–10 = Acts 15. The reasons for this equation can be summed up as follows:
(1) Both texts refer to an important event that happened in Jerusalem;
(2) Both texts have the same major players involved (Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James and Judaizing Christians);
(3) Both texts seem on the surface to be dealing with the same subject, namely the basis of acceptance of Gentiles as full participating members in the Christian fellowship;
(4) Both texts mention that circumcision was not required of Gentiles;
(5) Both texts agree that the discussion was about ‘in house” problems, not about the relationship between non-Christian Jews and Christians.
These parallels at first appear to be rather impressive until one looks a little more closely at the texts in question and notices:
(1) There remains the problem that Paul only mentions two visits up to Jerusalem, whereas by Acts 15 Luke has already mentioned three, a problem which is only compounded if Luke was at any point a companion of Paul or if he knew Galatians;
(2) In Acts Paul is sent up to Jerusalem as a representative of the Antioch church while in Galatians Paul says he went up by revelation;
(3) In Galatians the matter seems to be raised after Paul arrives in Jerusalem, while in Acts it is clear that the issue and its discussion is going on before then;
(4) Paul says he met privately with the three pillar apostles whereas the Council in Acts 15 appears to be a larger and more general meeting of the Jerusalem church leadership;
(5) Paul calls the troublemakers false brothers while Luke simply refers to Pharisaic Jewish Christians who insisted that Gentiles must be circumcised to be allowed to be full participants in Christian fellowship;
(6) Paul does not mention the decree of James at all in Galatians which surely he would have done had he known it, in order to stop the Galatians from even considering what the agitators were suggesting they must do, namely circumcise themselves and observe various days of the Jewish calendar (see Gal. 4:10).
(7) In Galatians 2 Paul plays an important even central role in the discussions, but in Acts 15 he is clearly overshadowed by Peter and James. Indeed, Luke gives Paul, who might be dubbed Luke’s hero to judge by his presentation in Acts, a scant one verse in Acts 15! This is passing strange if Luke knew he played a more important role.
Not all of this list of seven items is of equal weight but I would place especial stress on numbers 3–7. It is understandable how conservative Jewish Christians might claim James’ support and claim that Paul’s Gospel was inadequate for Gentile acceptance prior to the Jerusalem Council and the Decree but it is much more difficult to imagine this happening after such an event. Also Paul’s polemical approach in Galatians and Peter’s and Barnabas’ vacillations are all more easily understood before rather than after the Acts 15 council.
Appendix II: Agitators
In an important study, J. L. Sumney has pointed out at length the difficulties in identifying Paul’s opponents, and the even greater difficulty in assuming that there was some sort of united front of opponents that appears in a variety of Paul’s letters, such that we can read about the troublemakers in Corinth and assume these are the same persons with the same views causing difficulties in Galatia.39 This sort of synthetic approach is often done on the basis of the flimsiest verbal parallels between Pauline letters, but of course Paul was perfectly capable of using the same invective language to cover a variety of troublemakers. Sumney makes various valuable suggestions in dealing with the issue of opponents to which I have added several more:
(1) Reconstructions should be used only after it has been made clear that opponents are actually mentioned in the text. It is wrong to allow the identity of the opponents to be determined by a reconstruction of the historical situation or of the text or by a composite picture of opponents based on other Pauline letters.
(2) The identification of the opponents cannot be based on the assumption that we know the historical situation Paul is addressing better than Paul himself. We should assume Paul’s assessment is accurate unless there are strong reasons to think otherwise.
(3) Context is crucial to the meaning of words, and thus mere verbal similarities between passages in two Pauline letters are not a sufficient basis for transferring ideas about opponents from one letter to another. There must be a shared conceptual framework, which can only be determined by a full interpretation of the relevant passages in their respective contexts.
(4) Certainty of reference and reliability of reference should be two primary criteria applied to any statement to evaluate whether and what a text tells us about Paul’s opponents.
(5) Explicit statements, allusions and affirmations provide a descending order of reliability.
(6) Statements in thanksgiving periods or didactic contexts are likely to be more reliable or straightforward than material in polemical or even apologetic contexts.40
(7) Mirror-reading of allusions in polemical texts, assuming what Paul claims is the opposite of what the opponents were saying, is not a very reliable way to proceed and should only be used with great caution as a support for explicit statements.
(8) One should begin with easier and more explicit statements and work one’s way to more difficult ones.
(9) If the same kind of idea about opponents can be found in at least two different kinds of texts, for example in a didactic and also in a polemical text, it probably reflects something about the opponents.
(10) Obviously, one’s view on the dating of a particular Pauline epistle may come into play in assessing the issue of opponents, and one must take into account one’s own views on such matters. For example, in my view if one wishes to avoid possible anachronism in assessing Paul’s opponents it would be well to be very cautious about reading what is said in Galatians on the basis of what is said for instance in the Corinthian correspondence.41 This is also so because Corinthians says nothing about opponents insisting on circumcision whereas in Galatians this is clearly the main bone of contention.
(11) The way one assesses remarks in Paul’s letters about opponents must in part take into account the sort of rhetoric Paul is using. There is a considerable difference between remarks made in the heat of a piece of forensic rhetoric and remarks made in a piece of deliberative rhetoric, although deliberative rhetoric can involve polemics as we shall see. Remarks about opponents serve different sorts of functions in different kinds of rhetoric.
Appendix III:
Appendix IV: Community-identity construction in Galatians
Excursus: The Construction of a Community
As I have already had occasion to say, the signals we get from Galatians suggest that Paul is addressing a group of neophytes, those who are rather recent converts to the Christian faith and are not yet fully socialized or clear on the nature and limits of their new identity. This impression of newness comes not merely because Paul speaks of the Galatians in 1:6 as so quickly after their conversions contemplating a change in direction, but because there is almost no evidence whatsoever of any sort of social network or leadership structure or web of power set up in these Galatian churches to which Paul could appeal. Gal. 6:6 is perhaps the sole hint that there may have been some established teachers in Galatia, but on the whole, Paul has neither local leaders nor co-workers to appeal to, to help him deal with the problems arising because of the agitators.26 Rather he must appeal directly to the Galatian converts to act, even in so difficult a matter as how to handle the agitators (4:30).
Furthermore, the repeated references to the Spirit and the guidance of the Spirit coupled with the warning against various sorts of behavior thought to be typical of pagans suggest we have a community that is pneumatic in character and has not yet developed anything remotely like offices or institutions or set practices. Being Gentiles, this lack of structure and clearly defined roles and tasks (or ‘grid’ see below) made them vulnerable to the appeal of the agitators because the latter could give the Galatians a much clearer sense of identity and social boundaries by the suggestion that they should now follow the Mosaic law. Greco-Roman persons in general saw ritual and regularized symbolic actions as the heart of religion, and so they were probably doubly vulnerable at this stage in their development.
The notion of conversion if separated in time or distinguished from some kind of ritual initiation might well be confusing for them, and it seems clear enough from Gal. 3 that Paul is arguing that conversion, not some kind of ritual initiation is what made them Christians and set them apart for God. Gal. 3:27 is the sole reference to a ritual that Paul performed on behalf of the Galatians, and of course this ritual was not a repeatable one, but rather symbolized getting into Christ, something that had already been actualized when they received the Spirit through the hearing of faith. It is quite surprising that we hear little or nothing in this letter about what might be going on in Galatian worship (contrast 1 Cor. 11–14). One gets the impression that Paul had not offered the Galatians sufficient ongoing liturgical duties that they could regularly perform, and the agitators had taken advantage of this situation.
Paul views the state of his converts as one of spiritual immaturity. They are rather easily led astray, need to be reminded about some of the basics of the truth of the Gospel, and have admitted into their community those who are introducing pollutants or poisons into the body there (cf. Gal. 5:9; 6:7–8). If this poison and its source is not expelled from the community they will have been running in vain. Worse still, Paul sees them potentially going in a negative direction towards apostasy, by which he means denying the efficacy of Christ’s death through the assumption of the Mosaic requirements substituting slavery and stratification and social status for freedom and equality in grace.
Neyrey points out that if one simply examines the language Paul uses, Galatians bristles with the discussion of rivalry, competition, hypocrisy, jealousy, boasting, honor challenges and the like. Some of the clusters of this sort of language involve the examples Paul chooses to mention in Gal. 1–2, but Gal. 5–6 make clear that similar things are going on in Galatia as well. This is why the examples cited in Gal. 1–2 are relevant to the discussion that follows in the rest of the document. Paul’s repeated use of polemics only enhances the overall impression that we are dealing with a volatile situation in Galatia.
If one were to choose to categorize the situation in the Galatian communities on the basis of the group-grid model, the following can be said once one had scrutinized the data in Galatians closely. Paul is attempting to construct communities that will have a high sense of ‘group’ identity, one with a clear sense of what the center and the boundaries of the community are, but will also have a rather egalitarian local structure in which neither ethnic nor social nor sexual factors will determine roles (Gal. 3:28). This is not to say that Paul is advocating a Quaker meeting approach, or no local leadership (Gal. 6:6), rather he advocates some hierarchy but this is pneumatically determined according to gifts and graces, not social status, gender or ethnic identity. Paul is also certainly not renouncing his own authority over his converts (cf., e.g., Gal. 4:19–20), but he is an absentee authority, while the agitators appear still to be present on the scene. At most then one could say he is trying to construct a high group/mid-grid sort of community. The agitators, however, are arguing for a high group/high grid community, one in which ethnic and social factors loom large (Jerusalem, the pillars, the Mosaic Law) and probably gender ones (circumcision as status symbol and conveyor of status) as well.
What are the characteristics of a high group/low or mid-grid community as opposed to a high group/high grid community? The former is typified by the following features: (1) Human society in general is seen as part of the cosmos or nature and this is negatively evaluated. This is precisely what Paul is referring to when he speaks of the present evil age (Gal. 1:4) as opposed to new creation which is supposed to characterize the community (6:15—new creation is everything!). (2) There is personalized symbolic action, but not routinized symbolic action. In other words, baptisms happened irregularly (Gal. 3:27—notice he says ‘as many of you as were baptized …’ assuming this was done on a personal and individual basis not as an experience shared at once by the whole group), only when there were new converts, and perhaps they were only done at this point when the apostle was around, since there seems to be a leadership vaccuum in Galatia. (3) There were group oriented goals of action. This comes out especially clearly in the ‘virtues’ Paul tries to inculcate in his discussion of the fruit of the Spirit, and in his exhortations to bear one another’s burdens, love one’s neighbor, do good to all, and the like. The group’s identity and cohesiveness is placed ahead of individual identity or goals. For Paul the group is Jew and Gentile united in Christ, wherever they may be found. It is possible that he labels this group in a sectarian fashion ‘die Israel of God’ (Gal. 6:16) taking over the language of its forebear. (4) Unelaborated symbolic system. This becomes especially clear when Paul has to go back in Gal. 3–4 and explain to his converts about the ‘elementary principles of the universe’. It is not that Paul doesn’t have an elaborated symbol system, but that the Galatians have not yet absorbed or appropriated it in anything like a full way. Paul is trying to remedy this in part by the sort of arguments he presents in Gal. 3–4. In short, we have basically a D-Quadrant group situation in Galatia, various of the features of which Paul is trying to firm up. Robert Atkins sums up ably what this means.
The social environment of Quadrant D is dominated by the small group. The population is divided into those outside and those inside the group. There is an antithetical relationship between the two as group boundaries are defined. The leadership in this quadrant tends to be charismatic, with no plan of succession. This is the sectarian culture where small and institutionally unstable groups respond to forms of charismatic leadership. Distinctions between members of the small group are blended … though internal distinctions are limited, there is a clear boundary defining those who are participants and those who are not. Millenialist groups and cargo cults inhabit Quadrant D.27
It will be noted that Paul does not attempt to assign specific roles to men or women, Jews or Gentile or slaves or free in this document. They are all ‘one’ in Christ.
It is much more difficult to reconstruct what sort of model of community the agitators were working on, especially as we must take Paul’s word for what was going on. If, however, they were indeed insisting on circumcision and the keeping of the Mosaic Law by Gentiles, and not just by Jews, their goals seem to have been the same as is implied were the goals of the false brothers, but perhaps may be distinguished from those of the men who came from James, whose agenda seems to have been to keep Jewish Christians Law-observant.
The sociologists have suggested that the body was seen as a microcosm of the universe, so that the attempt to control the orifices or members of the body (for example by circumcision or other purification rituals) bespeaks a situation where a group is trying to cope with a hostile cosmos where order is lacking. In our context this is a useful insight into why the agitators were busily trying to get the Galatians to Judaize. In their own world of Judea, persecution was happening to Jewish Christians, and the agitators possibly attributed this to a lack of diligence in being religiously observant in a Jewish manner. Their solution to the problems in the macrocosmic sphere was to emphasize more control in the microcosmic sphere where they had more control, hence the Judaizing campaign even in far flung places. Then too, the persecution they feared may have been from local non-Christian Jews in Galatia with whom they were hoping to have at least peaceful relationships.
The following can be said about the agitators’ approach to community. Firstly, if Gal. 6:12 can be taken on face value, then the agitators were concerned about there being better relationships and continuity between non-Christian Judaism and Christianity. They wished to stop being persecuted and they wished to construct models of the Christian community that would be consistent with that goal. In short they wanted the Christian community to be seen to be a part of early Judaism which respected and observed Torah. For them also: (1) society was viewed as part of nature, but in this case there was not an antagonistic relationship with the larger society. Rather there was an attempt to fit into it, at least into larger Jewish society. (2) Routinized symbolic action which constantly reaffirmed the identity of the group was the order of the day. Some of the Galatians may have already accepted or were inclined to accept this part of the agitators’ agenda to reconstruct the communities in Galatia in a Jewish mold. This is what Paul is complaining about in Gal. 4:10—you are observing special days, months, seasons, and years. (3) There were group oriented goals of action, but they were centered not just on the local group, but on the larger group or the mother community in Jerusalem led by the pillars, and the even larger community of the ‘children of Abraham’ in general. They saw themselves as always and already part of the Israel of God, a larger entity and probably they believed this included non-Christian Jews. It was their agenda to make sure that all Christian Gentiles also became full proselytes into this larger society or community. (4) Unlike the case of the Galatians themselves, the agitators had a very elaborated symbolic universe and symbol system which they were rapidly teaching to the Galatians. It was closely tied to the routinized symbolic actions. In short, they were trying to construct a Quadrant C group or type of community in Galatia.
Again Atkins is helpful in summing things up.
The social environment of Quadrant C is dominated by the large group [in this case not just the Jerusalem Church, but perhaps also Jerusalem centered Judaism writ large]. The group justifies both its own existence and the strong classifications of individuals in roles in the group … Individuals understand their place and purpose in society in terms of the greater good of society [e.g., The Galatians should conform so the Jerusalem Jewish Christians, or the agitators or both, won’t be persecuted] … Specific tasks are reserved for special classes of participants. These are not achieved roles, but are ascribed to categories of status [e.g., the pillars, those of repute]. The stability for the individual is the security of knowing his or her place within the social system and of having a purpose in the cosmos.”28
It is also crucial to note that a Quadrant-C group uses nature to justify actions. One does not go against ‘nature’. Such a group, with a male-only initiation rite, was almost inevitably going to be a male dominated group, which did not handle pneumatism and other pressures toward a more egalitarian model of society well. There were more asymmetric than symmetric relationships in such a group and they could be based on ethnic, social, or gender factors or all three. A group with high grid is a group which has more degrees of social control through classification by sex, race, etc. and so more degree of role specification.
What is described above is two dueling models of community, that have more to disagee about than to agree about at the level of social existence. One is attempting to be a sect, the other a movement or party within a larger society. In such a situation a clash was inevitable.
GROUP-GRID COMMUNITY MODEL
QUADRANT A
QUADRANT B
Society and nature separate, which is negatively evaluated
Society part of nature, which is positively evaluated
Routinized symbolic action
Routinized symbolic action
Ego-oriented goals of action
Group-oriented goals of action
Unelaborated symbolic system
Elaborated symbolic system
QUADRANT C
QUADRANT D
Society and nature separate, which is positively evaluated.
Society part of nature, which is negatively evaluated.
Personalized symbolic action
Personalized symbolic action
Ego-oriented goals of action
Group-oriented goals of action
Elaborated symbolic system
Unelaborated symbolic system
The vertical line in the above model represents the ‘grid’ with increasing stratification and individuation the higher up the line one goes. The horizontal line represents the ‘group’ with the progression from weak to strong group moving from left to right. Both Paul and the agitators were working toward a strong group concept, though with significant differences.29
While 3:1 may be a rhetorical question, though I doubt it, the questions we find in 3:2 through to 3:5 are certainly rhetorical. Notice that Paul’s approach in 3:2 is indirect. He does not make an observation or a charge, he asks a rhetorical question. Paul, of course, knows the answer to the question but he wishes to lead his converts through a process of thinking that leads them to certain definite conclusions about what they are contemplating doing. That Paul does not say ‘I wish to learn from some of you’ suggests that he considers the problem rather widespread.
The first question reads literally ‘From works of the Law did you receive the Spirit or from hearing of faith?’ Notice the emphasis put on ‘works of the Law’ by placing it first in the sentence.30 This is the bone of contention and the cause for writing this letter.
The verb ‘received’ is in the aorist indicating a definite event in the past. Paul is referring to what happened to the Galatians at the point of their conversions. As Dunn points out, the phrase about receiving the Spirit is something close to a technical phrase for early Christians when they wanted to talk about conversion (cf. Rom. 8:15; 1 Cor. 2:12; 2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 3:14; Jn. 7:39; Acts 2:38; 10:47; 19:2). “It focuses the fact that for Paul and the first Christians this was the decisive and determinative element in the event or process of conversion and initiation; hence the nearest thing to a definition of ‘Christian’ in the NT, in Rom. 8:9 makes possession of the Spirit the sine qua non. Moreover it cannot really be understood in other than experiential terms (as though ‘receiving the Spirit’ was a matter of purely rational conviction, or simply a deduction to be drawn from the fact of their having been baptized). The appeal is clearly to an event which Paul could expect them vividly to remember …”31 G. D. Fee emphasizes that Paul is referring to what he deems to be unimpeachable evidence, which suggest he is surely referring to some dynamic experiences of the Spirit in Galatia that could have been neither forgotten nor denied.32 The point of this appeal is of course that Paul takes the reception of the Spirit as irrefutable evidence that God had accepted these Gentiles, and had accepted them without their having to submit to the Law of Moses and do ‘works of the Law’.
It is hard to overestimate the importance of the appeal to the ‘Spirit’ for Paul in this letter. As D. J. Lull has noted we find this appeal in interrogatives (3:1–5), in arguments from Scripture and tradition (3:6–14; 4:1–7, 21–31), and in paraenesis (5:1–6:10), which is to say that Paul uses it in each of the rhetorical forms of material he draws upon in Gal. 3:1–6:10.33 Notice that Paul does not mention the Spirit before he begins the argument or proof section of the letter, and thereafter it becomes a crucial part of the discussion until the rhetorical portion of this document is complete and Paul returns to epistolary conventions (cf. 6:11, 18). In other words, Paul’s discourse on the Spirit is not just a matter of Paul using traditional language or formulae. The Spirit is at the heart of matter and so plays a vital role in his acts of persuasion. A measure of the importance the appeal to the Spirit has for Paul is shown by what Paul sets the Spirit over against: (1) ‘works of the Law’ as here in 3:2; or (2) just ‘the Law’ as in 4:5–6 and 5:18; or (3) ‘desires of the flesh’ as in 5:16–17, 24–25 or (4) ‘works of the flesh’ as in 5:19–23 or finally (5) just ‘flesh’ (cf. 3:3 and 6:8).34 What (1) and (4) have in common is that they are dealing with merely human actions rather than divine ones. As Ziesler puts it: “For Paul, the indisputable fact that they have the Spirit is proof that they are God’s people [cf. Ezek 36:22–27], and his argument is that the Law had nothing to do with it. It therefore cannot be a necessary condition for being the people of God.”35
Lull has helpfully summed up matters as follows:
The letter to the Galatians itself gives evidence that Paul’s use of the term πνεῦμα was historically conditioned by the fact that the Spirit was a primary datum of experience for the Galatians, and not simply by the polemic against Jewish-Christian nomists: Paul mentions the problem with Jewish-Christian nomists in Jerusalem (2:1–10) and Antioch (2:11–14) without ever mentioning the Spirit … Paul’s statements about the Spirit serve to remind the Galatians that they were ‘eyewitnesses’ that salvation and freedom came from the crucified Christ and his Spirit; for they had received the Spirit, the ‘highest evidence’, from Paul’s gospel. The Spirit, therefore, proves Paul’s gospel and Galatian Christianity had no need of the law of Moses, since they had received the Spirit from Paul’s message about the crucified Christ before they had opportunity to perform any of the rites of the law of Moses.36
The question remains about the proper translation of the final phrase in 3:2—ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως. It could be rendered in one of four or five ways: (1) from hearing with faith; (2) from hearing, that is from faith; (3) from hearing the faith; (4) from the message that results in believing; (5) from the message about the faith.37 If one is looking for other Pauline phrases that appear at least on the surface to say the same thing as this phrase Rom. 10:17 immediately comes to mind where Paul speaks of ἡ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς. There the context (cf. 10:17b) favors the translation ‘faith comes by or from hearing’, as Paul is speaking about a chain of events—preaching the word about Christ is followed by hearing and proper hearing leads to believing what has been heard. That this conclusion is correct is reinforced by what follows in 10:18 where Paul quotes Is. 29:10—‘Have they not heard?’ and also 10:14 where it is asked ‘How are they to hear without someone to proclaim?’ In other words, while the translation of ἀκοῆς here as ‘what is heard’ (i.e., ‘faith comes from what is heard’ [the message]) is possible, the context suggests it is less likely than the translation we have suggested. The question is, however, does the slightly different phrase in Gal. 3:2 (ἀκοῆς πίστεως)?) have the same nuances as the phrase in Rom. 10:17?
In Gal. 3:2 though the contrast here is between faith and Law and not between hearing and doing, it should be noted that the contrast of importance here is between observing the Law that is doing works of the Law38 and something, and that something is most naturally seen not as ‘what is heard’ but another human activity of the Galatians, namely ‘hearing’.39 Secondly, as Fung points out, usually in Paul’s letter the preposition ἐκ is used to denote a direct not a remote causal relationship.40 The Gospel message is not the direct cause of the Galatians receiving the Spirit, rather hearing and believing the Gospel is. Thirdly, the active sense ‘hearing’ is supported by the larger context for as the καθὼς suggests at the beginning of 3:6, Paul intends to draw a comparison between what was true of Abraham and what is true of the Galatians. Abraham is said to be justified not by a message about faith or even a message which produces faith, but rather by faith. Verse 14 must be compared to vs. 5 as part of an ongoing single argument.41 S. K. Williams’ critique of R. B. Hays’ view on this phrase is telling.42 Ἁκοὴ as a noun never seems to lose its primary passive sense and focuses on the receiving or appropriating action rather than on the origin of something (i.e., what has been heard). It is no argument to say that we must translate this word ‘message’ because it is ridiculous to think that Paul believes that God supplies the Spirit or works miracles on the basis of some human action such as hearing. This overlooks that even if one translates the word message, preaching the Gospel is no less a human action than hearing it. In short God does depend in either case on a human activity for miracles to happen or the Spirit to be received.43
In conclusion, Williams may also be right that we should see a sort of epexegetical sense to this phrase (‘hearing’ that is ‘faith’), for faith is a kind of hearing and receiving of what God is giving.44 If this is correct, then there is a very close parallel to what follows in 3:8. Just as Abraham was justified by responding in faith, so the Galatians received the Spirit the same way—by faithful hearing or the ‘hearing’ that is more than listening but in fact believing and heeding (cf. Rom. 1:5) the word spoken (cf. 1 Kngs 22:19–23; Is 6; Jerm 1:11–16; Ezek 1; Amos 7:1–9; 8:1–3; 9:1–4). Jesus himself appears to have emphasized this sort of believing hearing—‘let the one who has ears, hear’ (Mk. 4:9 and passim).45 A second alternative would be simply to translate the phrase as is often done ‘hearing with faith’.
Verse 3 begins with οὕτως which points to what follows, a series of rhetorical questions. Notice the use of invective again, or παρρησία (free speech), with Paul calling his converts fools once more.46 That Paul feels free to address the Galatians this way may suggest the strength of their relationship, as Paul does not seem to assume that this sort of address will alienate his converts, but rather give them a wake-up call. Paul wants to know if they are going to be so spiritually undiscerning that having begun47 with the Spirit, they now are going to bring their Christian life to completion with the flesh. These two verbs occur together elsewhere in Paul (2 Cor. 8:6; Phil 1:6), and in each case, the reference is to the beginning and end or completion of a process. For this reason, it is probably a mistake to bring into the discussion extraneous notions about ‘being made perfect’. This brings up a crucial point. Paul’s subject in this letter is not how one gets into the Christian fold, nor how one stays in the Christian fold, but how one goes on with one’s Christian life until either the Lord returns or the person dies. The Galatians are thinking of adding obedience to the Law to faith in Christ. In Paul’s view this is changing horses in the middle of the stream. Paul uses the word ‘flesh’ here no doubt because he is thinking of the entrance ritual for the Mosaic covenant, circumcision.48 Circumcision was sometimes called ‘the covenant in the flesh’ (Gen 17:13; Sir. 44:20). Both ‘flesh’ and ‘Spirit’ seem to be used here in the instrumental sense.
The idea being critiqued here could be rather easily defended by Jewish Christians, even using the example of Abraham as is shown by Jam. 2:22 which speaks of Abraham’s faith being made perfect by works, and the author would presumably include circumcision among those works since Genesis does go on to refer to Abraham’s submission to circumcision.49 But Paul will having nothing to do with the notion that Christians ought to add obedience to the Mosaic Law to faith in Christ. “Christian life is one that starts, is maintained, and comes to culmination only through dependence on the activity of God’s Spirit”,50 not by relying on ‘works of the Law’ to complete one’s Christian life. Notice that ἐπιτελεῖσθε is in the present continual tense. This is the issue Paul must primarily discourse on in what follows, how they will go on in the present and into the future as Christians, not how they began.
Verse 4 brings us to yet another controversy—how to translate ἐπάθετε. Does it mean ‘suffered’ or does it have a more general sense ‘experienced’? On the one hand it might seem obvious that the verb ought to be translated ‘suffered’ here. After all, always in the LXX and also always elsewhere in the NT some forty-one times, this verb is always used in an unfavorable sense, meaning ‘suffered’ (cf., e.g., Lk. 22:15; 24:46; Acts 1:3; 3:18; 17:3; 1 Cor. 12:26; Heb. 2:18; 1 Pet. 2:20). Yet this is not the only thing this verb can mean, it can indeed be used in a positive sense (cf. Josephus Ant. 3:15). Furthermore, as Betz points out, the verbal pair μαθεῖν/παθεῖν has a long history in Greek thought, and we do find the former verb in 3:2 meaning to learn and in such a tandem the latter verb normally means ‘to experience’.51 However, in the one text in the NT where we find this tandem more closely joined, Heb. 5:8, πάσκω surely means suffered. Thus it is not certain how we should translate the verb here, but the context certainly favors the translation ‘experienced’ with reference to the spiritual experiences of the Galatians.52 Nowhere else in Galatians do we hear about these converts suffering (6:12 refers to the ‘agitators’ being persecuted, not the Galatians). The second half of this verse suggests that Paul strongly hopes they have not experienced so much for nothing. As Lightfoot says “the Apostle hopes better things of his converts. Εἴ γε leaves a loophole for doubt, and καὶ widens this implying an unwillingness to believe on the part of the speaker.”53
The first division of this argument is brought to a closure in vs. 5, as the οὖν, which is resumptive, suggests. Verse 5 is a restatement of the one question that Paul initially asked in vs. 2. The restatement, however, places stronger emphasis on the source of the Spirit-it came to the Galatians from the One who so bountifully supplies all good things. The verb here probably does not mean merely ‘gives’ but rather ‘bountifully supplies’.54 One may wish to compare Phil. 1:19, but as Lightfoot says the compound form of this verb which we find here especially conveys the notion of liberality (cf. 2 Pet 1:5). This indicates that the Galatians had, in Paul’s view, some remarkable spiritual experiences when they were converted, and presumably vs. 4 suggests that such experiences continued beyond conversion. These experiences would presumably include the manifestation of various spiritual gifts (ecstatic prayer?—cf. Gal. 4:6), and perhaps visions as well. Also mentioned are miracles (‘works of powers’—the plural indicating miracles),55 and these presumably continued well beyond the time of the Galatians’ conversions,56 as the present tense of the participles ‘supplies’ and ‘works’ suggests. Paul does not mention miracles very often in his letters, but there are sufficient references to let us know that the work of the Spirit from time to time took this form in Paul’s churches (cf. Rom. 15:19; 2 Cor. 12:12). There is no indication that these miracles were all performed by Paul and/or his co-workers when he was present with the Galatians. Paul concludes this first division of his first argument by reminding his converts of the obvious—these things did not occur through works of the Law but rather from hearing and believing the Gospel message.
GROUP-GRID COMMUNITY MODEL
QUADRANT A
QUADRANT B
Society and nature separate, which is negatively evaluated
Society part of nature, which is positively evaluated
Routinized symbolic action
Routinized symbolic action
Ego-oriented goals of action
Group-oriented goals of action
Unelaborated symbolic system
Elaborated symbolic system
QUADRANT C
QUADRANT D
Society and nature separate, which is positively evaluated.
Society part of nature, which is negatively evaluated.
Personalized symbolic action
Personalized symbolic action
Ego-oriented goals of action
Group-oriented goals of action
Elaborated symbolic system
Unelaborated symbolic system
GROUP-GRID COMMUNITY MODEL
QUADRANT A
QUADRANT B
Society and nature separate, which is negatively evaluated
Society part of nature, which is positively evaluated
Routinized symbolic action
Routinized symbolic action
Ego-oriented goals of action
Group-oriented goals of action
Unelaborated symbolic system
Elaborated symbolic system
QUADRANT C
QUADRANT D
Society and nature separate, which is positively evaluated.
Society part of nature, which is negatively evaluated.
Personalized symbolic action
Personalized symbolic action
Ego-oriented goals of action
Group-oriented goals of action
Elaborated symbolic system
Unelaborated symbolic system