|
Word Gems
exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
Galatians
Chapter 1
return to the main-page article on Galatians
[Prefatory note: The Authorized (King James) Version, unless otherwise indicated, is employed herein, featured, most notably, in bold type as plenary verses and, at times, as key words and phrases.]
A Survey and Critical Analysis of Galatians 1
Much of Galatians, a letter of uncertain date, estimates concerning which range from “A.D. 49” to the “mid-fifties” (Vaughan 12), may strike the reader as combative in tone; there's a reason for this, why much of it, “indignant and reproachful” (Vine 1), sounds like what could be a script from the television program, Firing Line. We discover that the apostle Paul has found himself the victim of a smear campaign, of the most grievous sort, as it originates not from unbelievers but from within the church itself! Paul is forced to defend himself, not simply for his own honor but because the truth of the gospel is at stake.
As we make our way through this first section of Galatians, we sense Paul’s anger to be almost palpable. His other letters begin with cordial greetings to the church -- not so here. He gets right to the point. It is easy to imagine the apostle pacing the floor, dictating his thoughts to a scribe, punching his words. He intends to answer his critics and their lies about him. His mind floods with too many things to say, causing him, at times, to ramble. This letter to his wayward flock, the Galatian church, will not be systematically laid out with a lawyer’s degree of precision that we see in the book of Romans – no time for that now. Paul’s heart is burning; he must set the record straight about the nature of the gospel, and he loses no time. If Paul were a Marvel comics fan -- a metaphor requiring the reader’s most gracious indulgence – as pen begins to touch parchment, we would likely hear him murmuring under his breath, "It's clobberin' time."
1. 1. Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Paul, an apostle. In the first two chapters of Galatians, Paul deals with an attack by a group whose untoward agenda will become progressively clear – enter the Judaizers, as they are sometimes known, those who demand that Christians must observe the Mosaic law. We infer by Paul’s immediate interjection of official designation – apostle, the Greek indicating “one sent” (Vaughan 15) and, therefore by extension, “a minister plenipotentiary” (Ridderbos 40) or “emissary extraordinary” (Cole 30) -- that his detractors had attempted to undermine his authority. Paul, the lawyer, knows too well that if they succeed here, they will go on to win the other debates by default. Then as now, demagogues quickly resort to character assassination as a substitute for honest dialogue -- because they cannot hope to win a fair, open debate. It was much easier to lie about Paul, the man, to misrepresent his message, than to defeat his arguments on their merits. "In the opening sentence [. . .] Paul at once expresses the [. . .] polemic tone which dominates the entire letter" (Mikolaski 1092).
not of men, neither by man. Paul states emphatically that his apostolic commission was granted directly from God and derives not from human agency – from neither the college of The Twelve nor any particular individual. We can almost hear Paul’s critics chattering in the background: “Who does this Paul fellow think he is? Was he with The Twelve and the Lord? Did Peter ever send him on a mission? Check the records, and you’ll find that this Paul is a self-appointed apostle, an arrogant impostor – they never heard of him in Jerusalem!”
1. 2-5. And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Galatia. “All are agreed that the Galatian churches were in that section of the world that we know as Asia Minor” (Vaughan 17).
Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins. Before Paul finishes his opening sentence, he will touch on two most pressing issues: as noted, his apostolic authority; and now, the nature of the gospel message. The Judaizers, in their insistence that one, effectively, needed to become a Jew in order to become a Christian, preached a salvation message that must have sounded something like this: “Yes, of course, Jesus is the Messiah. But after you acknowledge that there’s something else required of you. We all know God’s law is holy and eternal, going back to Sinai and even to the creation of the world – surely you don’t think that God meant to set aside the holy law just because he sent his Anointed! Why Jesus himself made it clear that he came not to destroy the law but to confirm it. Minimizing the law can only lead to anarchy – any reasonable person can understand that. Have you been listening to that Paul fellow? We thought so. Don’t you think that his grace-message is just a little too easy, a little too good to be true? Now, let us tell you what is really required to be a Christian.”
Paul, one who shows himself to be a man most tolerant in all matters peripheral (1 Cor. 9. 22), will surrender, as we shall see, not an inch when it comes to defending the essence of the salvation message. “The importance of the death of Christ for the salvation of men is declared at the outset in order to challenge the error of the Judaizers who taught that works of men can save" ((Mikolaski 1093). Paul emphasizes “the Cross” in the first few words of his letter, precisely the subject the Pharisee-legalists wanted to avoid. Martin Luther asserts that these salvation words “are very thunderclaps from heaven” (35) against all manner of humanly-devised righteousness – with these words we are introduced to the doctrinal war to be waged in Galatians.
The salutation is very brief; we find Paul offering “no prayers, no praise, no thanksgiving and no commendation. Instead he addresses himself at once to his theme with a note of extreme urgency" (Stott 21).
1. 6-10. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
I marvel. Regarding the Galatians’ rapid change of heart, Paul employs “a strong word,” comments Alan Cole, bearing the sense of “I am astounded” (38). For Paul, the actions of the Galatians represent much more than a change in intellectual propositions.
removed. The Greek word carries the force of “turncoat,” and was used of “soldiers who revolt or desert” (Stott 21). Notice the sense of transference of loyalty: it is a turning away not from mere doctrine but from a Person -- “removed from him.” Paul’s Christianity is a world apart from his old days of Pharisaism, the stone-cold legalism that elevated the letter above the spirit. Paul speaks as a man with personal knowledge of Christ, and he yearns for the Galatians to share the same measure of enlightenment.
another gospel: Which is not another. “which is really no Good News at all” (Twentieth Century New Testament 842). The apostle, in the heat of apologetic battle, makes a number of pithy, rapid-fire comments, the full exposition of which has been the focus of many a sermon. Given the immediate context of “law versus grace,” in a more leisurely setting, Paul may have offered an expanded explanation something like this: “Men since ancient times have sought God or gods by attempting to offer some form of appeasement, some method of earning favor – all just a lot of useless huffing-and-puffing, guaranteed to produce, in the seeker, nothing more than a sense of guilt, the fear of not having 'measured up' to divine demands. The message of my detractors, though they call it a gospel, is merely a modified version of this tired, ancient theme. It is the message that says you must work harder, you must shape up – you must save yourself! This is hardly a gospel -- nothing here that men would call good news.”
trouble. “It is a word used to describe the Judaizers and their work again in 5:10 and 6:17;” also, “Acts 15:24” (Longenecker 16), possibly a very important reference as it describes the activities of certain ones who, without permission of apostolic Jerusalem, claimed to represent high spiritual authority in their message of legalism. Paul’s use of this word here may be a veiled reference to the spurious credentials of his critics, the very maneuver they attempted against him! In any case, “trouble” in the Greek suggests the sense of “shake” or “agitate”; in this case, a state of mental “turmoil” caused by false doctrine (Stott 23).
accursed. This divine ban, that which denotes a state “devoted to destruction” (Stamm 452), suggests to some a spirit of ungodly hostility by Paul toward his enemies. But John Stott asserts that Paul’s censure is no “intemperate” invective hurled in a fit of pique, but instead a sober, clear-eyed warning to anyone – we must notice here that Paul includes himself under interdiction – anyone who would dare to misrepresent the salvation message of God (24). Paul includes even an “angel from heaven” on his list of potential offenders, by which the apostle may be saying: “No matter how exalted the purported rank or authority one may claim – if he brings a message that minimizes Christ’s role in our salvation, he is to be rejected.” Paul may have found it necessary to inject this thought because his opponents likely were guilty examples of this very thing! As Paul’s letter unfolds, we shall see that the Judaizers, “an extreme ‘right-wing’ group of the Jewish-Christian Church” (Cole 40), based the legitimacy of their message on derivative authority, the kind vested in exalted others, the august of Jerusalem.
persuade men. Paul was being accused of “canvassing for men’s support” and “currying favour with men” (New English Bible 843), of preaching an easy-to-accept message in order to bring in large numbers of converts. His critics cast themselves as stalwart defenders of the faith, anchors of truth in a storm of liberal attack. Having briefly addressed his adversaries’ two-pronged thrust, the targeting of both his apostolic authority and the gospel’s essence, Paul now begins to offer an extended explanation regarding the origin of his work:
1. 11-14. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
I certify you. “I would remind you” (Twentieth Century New Testament 843).
the gospel [. . .] is not after man. “the Good News [. . .] is no mere human invention” (Twentieth Century New Testament 843). It has been said that the Good News is not the sort of story man could have written even if he would, a notion that strikes me as having merit. I once heard the account of a missionary who asked a tribal witch doctor why his people incessantly beat on their drums. “It is because,” came the somber answer, “our god does not like to be bothered and hides his eyes from us -- for this reason we beat our drums to attract his attention.” How sad! In other words, these primitives expressed the sentiment, “Our god does not really love us or care for us. If he is to bless us at all, we must first offer gifts to him; but even before that, we must get his attention.” As mentioned above, man from ancient times, has envisioned divinity as demanding appeasement. The gods, at best, many ancients lament, merely tolerate us – we are not loved. This, in essence, is the message of history’s religions. But since the coming of Jesus -- if man can accept it -- we have been introduced to a concept most surprising: not only is God the “loving God,” but he is also the “suffering God,” the one who “stoops to conquer.” I cannot resist adding here the poignant words of C.S. Lewis:
It is hardly complimentary to God that we should choose him as an alternative to hell. [. . .] I call this 'divine humility,' because it's a poor thing to strike our colours to God when the ship is going down under us, a poor thing to come to him as a last resort, to offer up our own when it is no longer worth keeping. If God were proud, he would hardly have us on such terms. But he is not proud. He stoops to conquer. He would have us even though we have shown that we prefer everything else to him, and come to him because there is nothing better now to be had. (97)
Very few in history have seriously conceived of such a humble God! And therefore, as the apostle teaches, “the gospel is not after man” – no mere human endeavor.
neither received it of man, neither was I taught it. The Judaizers would have claimed that Paul, if he knew anything about the gospel, learned it in the “catechetical schools” of Jerusalem, from Peter or James – all of which was meant to imply that Paul owed them a debt of loyalty (Cole 46).
by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Paul, having asserted that he could not have contrived the gospel message, nor had he learned of it at the feet of others, now forthrightly declares that Jesus Christ, the one who had ordained him as apostle, had personally instructed him; the manner and methods of such instruction he does not explain.
my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion. “my manner of life when I was still a practising Jew” (New English Bible 843). Paul well understood the Judaizers’ “repugnance to the Cross.” He is about to share with his readers that once he too felt this way, even “to the bottom of his soul” (Vine 3).
you have heard. In this super-charged atmosphere of ecclesiastical politics, Paul well knew that any assertion he might make would be challenged by the other side. Understanding this, Paul’s seemingly innocuous comment, “you have heard,” becomes a maneuver on his part to create an airtight argument. Paul, in effect, is saying this: “I rose to the very top of my former profession! I became a Pharisee’s Pharisee, and was well known in my country. The things that I did were not done secretly but were commonly known to the many. In other words, don’t even begin to say that what I’m about to relate didn’t happen. There are too many witnesses that will attest to my story’s veracity.”
exceedingly zealous. Regarding his former misguided fervor and lynx-eyed determination, Paul wants his readers to understand that “a man in that [fanatical] mental and emotional state is in no mood to change his mind, or even to have it changed for him [. . .]. Only God could reach him -- and God did" (Stott 32).
1. 15-19. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
God, who [. . .] called me by his grace. Despite his zealous efforts, Paul now perceives their smallness and impotence, overturned by the purposes of God - that which “pleased” him. As he analyzes his life, Paul believes that God had “designs on him” long ago, even as an unborn babe. However, Paul the Christian-hunter and waster of the Church finds his sense of destiny and special mission tempered by feelings of inadequacy. He knows too well that, but for “grace,” God’s unilateral act of forgiveness, his life would have come to nothing.
immediately. Paul desires for his readers to know that in his story there will be no unaccounted-for time gaps, during which he could have received the gospel message from an outside source.
I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem. After his conversion, his spiritual epiphany of coming to know the “Son,” Paul stresses what he did not do: he neither spoke to any person, nor – more importantly – did he travel to apostolic Jerusalem for a briefing.
after three years I went up to Jerusalem. Not until three years after his conversion did Paul finally make his way to Jerusalem. But he would make clear that the purpose of this trip was not to pay homage to Peter – only to “see” Peter. John Stott points out that the Greek here “was used of sight-seeing ” (35) and implies nothing in terms of any deferential pilgrimage. Paul simply wanted to meet Peter, not to serve as his apprentice. Reading between the lines, it seems clear that the Judaizers were making much political hay out of the fact that this trip had taken place. No doubt they claimed that Paul had learned of the gospel while on this trip.
1. 20-24. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. And they glorified God in me.
before God, I lie not: Here we catch a glimpse of the success of the “smear campaign” against Paul: "Why did he need to add an oath? [. . .] Paul, the elect vessel of God, was held in such great contempt among his own converts of Galatia, that it was necessary for him to swear that he had spoken the truth" (Luther 62).
Afterwards [. . .] Syria and Cilicia. The trip to Jerusalem had been a short one, a little more than two weeks – hardly enough time to have been fully indoctrinated as a missionary - if that had been the visit’s purpose. Paul explains that after this visit, he left the region entirely, traveling far north to his home region, nowhere near the teaching influence of Jerusalem.
unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea [. . .] And they glorified God in me. Paul continues to emphasize that, in the early years after his conversion, contact with Jerusalem was very limited. Because of this, the churches in “Judaea” had never met Paul, the new Christian, and knew of him only in terms of his checkered past! But when Judaean Christians began to learn of the conversion of their former nemesis, they gave credit and glory to God – not to anyone else. Paul’s purpose for mentioning this here seems to be: (1) further evidence that his gospel had not been shaped by Jerusalem, and (2) a suggestion that fellow Christians themselves sensed in the conversion of the formerly fanatical Paul a special and direct working of God - quite apart from the efforts of apostolic Jerusalem. The “historical, circumstantial evidence” presented here by Paul could not easily be set aside and “gainsaid” (Stott 36).
As we approach the next chapter, it may be profitable to recount the various charges brought against Paul. We find that his detractors were attacking him from many sides. First they said that he was no apostle at all -- if anything, a second-rate one. Next they claimed that he made up his gospel or, at very least, was indebted to Peter and Jerusalem for it. Now, as we enter chapter two, they try to say that his gospel is different from the one preached in Jerusalem. We need a scorecard to keep track of the Judaizers’ assertions. Paul’s enemies, these spin-doctors of legalism, come back faster than a White House press secretary.
J. P. Morgan once remarked, "A man always has two reasons for the things he does - a good one and the real one." That real motive, we begin to sense, given the energy expended by Paul’s critics, must have been weighty, indeed - and very threatening. Why would religionists, some of them professional men from far-away Jerusalem, bother at all with the simple country-folk of Paul’s hinterland missionary-territory, that intellectual backwater, the hill-country of Galatia? This unlikely scenario begins to suggest that we are witnessing in Galatians something more than mere debate about fine doctrinal points. Curtis Vaughan offers this: “The epistle is concerned with the heart of the gospel, indeed, the very essence of Christianity. [. . .] it sounded the death-knell for the Judaizing controversy and paved the way for the full liberty of the Gospel” (12). The stakes were high. At risk was a lifetime’s investment in certain views about God, history, life, and salvation – and the delegation from Jerusalem had no intention of quietly surrendering their mental paradigms.
|