Galatians 1:1-12
1
Paul an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities,
but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2
and all the members of God's family who are with me, To the churches of
Galatia: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord
Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to set us free from
the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5
to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
6 I am astonished that you are so
quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning
to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another gospel, but there
are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary
to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have
said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to
what you received, let that one be accursed! 10 Am I now seeking
human approval, or God's approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were
still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
11 For I want you to know, brothers
and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12
for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I
received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
The theme of
Galatians 1:1-5 is that of salutation or greeting, emphasizing the divine
commission of Paul. It is longer than other letters, already suggesting the
themes of the letter, that of the divine source of his apostleship and that
Christ is the source of salvation, apart from the Law.
This opening is
shorter and less friendly than any other letter. He offers no words of praise
or thanksgiving. He brings together the two themes of the letter. He is a true
apostle, which will cover in Chapters 1-2. He will then present the good news
of freedom for those who believe in Chapters 3-5. Paul is adapting the
salutation portion of this letter to his primary purpose of persuading the
Galatians to his point of view. Immediately, Paul makes use of Christian
tradition as an element of persuasion. Tradition is not just a rhetorical
strategy, but is also an appeal to an ethos. The purpose is to bind his readers
to him, rather than a matter of polemics. Such tradition is shared knowledge.
Tradition is an example of knowledge shared by both speaker and audience, and
one may use it in a highly effective manner, since the audience will not
dispute its truth. In fact, the speaker can accept that the audience will
believe it to be true. The speaker may use such shared knowledge as a common
ground for supporting the view the speaker advocates. The theme of his
reference to tradition is on the inauguration of the eschatological age by the
resurrection of Christ. It suggests an interpretation of the voluntary death of
Christ as something that happened according to the will of God in order to
effect this liberation. The notion of spiritual liberty, which becomes so
important later, finds a basis in tradition here. The crucial issue is one of
divine authorization, and so, he begins by showing them how they unite in these
matters. Thus, rather than dealing with the contents of the gospel, he deals
with divine authorization. It would be futile to convince these people of his
gospel if they did not believe God had authorized him to preach and teach it.[1]
1 Paul an apostle—sent neither by
human commission (ap anqrwpwn) nor from human
authorities (di
anqrwpou), but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who
raised him from the dead— God is the fountain-head of his apostleship, distinguishing
him from false prophets.[2] Yet, false prophets will make the same claim
as does Paul. All true ministers of the gospel will have God as the source of
their ministry, rather than people.[3]
Thus, Paul stresses the directness of the divine commission. We might note however, that in Acts 14 and in
other places, it is clear that laying on of hands and commissioning from the
people and the elders is an important step in ministry. Thus, there is nothing
inherently wrong with human commissioning. As we shall discover, Paul stresses
the directness of his divine commission due to the context of his struggle in
these churches. The point is not setting aside the commissioning in Antioch,
but rather, to stress that it had a higher authority. In reality, of course,
Paul will identify his conversion and apostleship with the same experience. One
can assume that his opponents had a quite different account of his apostleship.
The mention of the resurrection here has special force because Paul received
his commission from the risen Lord.[4]
The opponents of Paul must
have been badgering him about his apostleship. If his office was human, then it
was inferior to their apostleship, and they could control him. If his office
was divine, then his vision was inferior to their apostleship, because they had
personal contact with Jesus. We know little about apostleship because the New
Testament sources reflect an advanced stage of development (see 1:17-19; 2:8;
Romans 11:13; I Cor. 15:8). Apostleship began sometime from AD 30-50 and it is
part of the Galatian controversy. Jesus’ disciples became apostles, making the
concept rooted in Judaism. Betz thinks that the fact that Paul considered
himself an apostle shows that religious experience also created apostles,
making his concept rooted in Gnosticism.[5] The “however” I would offer is that what Paul
experienced was the risen Lord. It appears that as Paul relates the story later
in Chapter 1, the apostles in Jerusalem, after hearing Paul discuss his account
of the risen Lord, considered it similar to their own. Personally, I would be
cautious about trying to place Paul too close to Gnostic teaching.
We need to ponder the
question, who is Paul, that he dares to represent himself as the preacher of
the only gospel? In this verse, the contrast becomes apparent, for Paul is an
apostle, the human being who speaks this human word, not from a human being,
but “through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.”
Commissioning by a human being would mean that Paul would have preached another
gospel.[6]
Martin Luther captures the polemical nature of this letter by immediately
commenting on this verse that the world bears the Gospel a grudge because the
Gospel condemns the religious wisdom of the world. The world will want to
develop its religious views, while it will also charge the gospel with being
subversive, licentious, and offensive to God. It receives persecution from the
world as if it were a plague. Yet, the paradox is that the gospel supplies the
world with the salvation of Jesus Christ, peace of conscience, and every
blessing.
On a
practical side, all ministers might want to consider making much of their
calling and impress upon others the fact that God has delegated them to preach
the Gospel. As ambassadors of a government receive honor for their office and
not for their private person, so ministers of Christ should exalt their office
in order to gain authority among human beings. This is not pride, he thinks,
but needful respect for the office of pastor. In a sense, Paul takes pride in
his ministry, not to his own praise but to the praise of God.[7]
Further, to address one’s congregation only with mildness, even when they need
severity is not the part of a teacher. Rather, one who did this would be one
who is an enemy of the church. Paul would not be so indignant about a small
matter, for Paul was not like this. Here is a sign that the matters with which
he is dealing in this letter are serious.[8]
The
larger point here is that is that it is futile trying to convince them of
"his gospel" if they are not convinced that God has authorized the
“he” of his gospel.
This
letter is from the apostle Paul, 2
and all the members of God's family who are with me, To the churches of
Galatia: The phrase may suggest Paul was not at any of the great centers,
like Macedonia or Corinth, but possibly between Macedonia and Achaia.[9] It suggests the small band of those who were
with him. The abruptness of the language
is remarkable. Some would suggest that the seriousness of the confrontation is
clear in that Paul does not address them as church of God or Christ.[10]
That is true, but I am not so sure one can make too much of this, for he does
refer to them as “brothers and sisters” and as the “churches” of Galatia. In
fact, some struggle with the fact that Paul uses such generous language with a
church that “had almost entirely revolted from Christ.”[11]
The struggle of Calvin arises out of his own battle with the churches of
Europe. To his mind, the Pope wants to impose almost anything upon Christian
people. He then speculates that if Paul were alive in the time of Calvin, “he
would perceive the miserable and dreadfully shattered remains of a church; but
he would perceive no building.” Calvin offers the suggestion that Paul is using
church as a metaphor, taking the small part of these churches that is faithful,
and makes it stand for the whole.
3 Grace to you and peace from
God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul wishes for the churches a state of friendship
with God.[12]
The language of Paul stresses the exalted place that the resurrected Christ had
in the thinking of Paul. Further identifying Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins, the oldest recorded
Christology,[13] to set us free from the present evil age, suggesting
a rescue oriented Christology,[14]
according to the will of, and in
harmony with,[15] our God and Father, The present world or
age, as opposed to coming age of the Messiah.
The present coincides with the rule of Satan, and with the rule of sin
and Law. For Paul, the present age is passing
away, while the eternal one is about to come. Christ has freed us from these
forces and made us members of the rule of God.[16]
The Gospel is a rescue from bondage.[17]
Here is the ground of acceptance with God.
The use of peri does not mean a vicarious act, but it will
frequently appear in that context. Who is Jesus Christ is? Paul answers that
Christ is the one who delivers us. Paul is committed to the one who has brought
liberation and redemption.[18] Had
the churches of Galatia appreciated these “benefit of redemption, they would
never have fallen into opposite views of religion.” One “who knows Christ in a
proper manner beholds him earnestly, embraces him with the warmest affection,
is absorbed in the contemplation of him, and desires no other object. The best
remedy for purifying our minds from any kind of errors or superstitions is to
keep in remembrance our relation to Christ, and the benefits which he has
conferred upon us.”[19]
We may well have here an early version of what later scholars would refer to as
realized eschatology. The age to come still lies in the future, of course, but
believers in Christ here and now partake of it. Christ, through the
resurrection, as already entered the age to come, but believers now share his
life. As Paul will argue, the Holy Spirit helps believers now enjoy that life.[20]
This passage may be the earliest written statement we now have concerning the
significance of the death of Christ. It relates his death to the supersession
of the old age by the new. Here is an example of Christ offering himself, which
is in the theology of Paul, is also a matter of God being in Christ and the
cross.
Paul offers a doxology: 5 to whom be the glory forever
and ever. Amen. Why does Paul offer a doxology in the opening of the
letter?[21]
Paul may well intend to stimulate thanksgiving and contemplation of the
invaluable gift they had received from Christ.[22]
The theme of Galatians
1:6-10 is that Paul is astonished that these people so quickly turn from the
gospel to something that is no gospel at all. He invokes a curse upon anyone
bringing a counterfeit gospel. Aristotle makes it clear that the orator will
have to speak to bring the hearers into a frame of mind that will dispose them
to anger, and to represent the adversaries as open to such charges and possessed
of such qualities as do make people angry. [23]
In this case, I think, Paul wants his readers to be as angry with his opponents
as he is. He also wants them to be angry with themselves for allowing this
situation to occur. Think of it this way. I can think of people who would be
disgusted with something I say or do, and not only would it not matter, I would
wear it as a badge of honor. I can also think of other people whom, if I did or
said something that actually disgusted them, it would make me quite angry with
myself. Paul assumes that these people will care that they have done something
that has disgusted him. The reprimand found in 1:6-10 is uncharacteristic of
most of Paul’s other letters, since he offers no thanksgiving for the Galatians
in his salutation. Nonetheless, one might expect his scolding in light of the
letter’s initial greeting where he declares that the gospel has its center
centered on a number of core confessions of the divine commission Paul has
received, the message of grace and peace, and the sacrificial and liberating
death of Christ (1:1-4).
In comparison with other
letters of Paul, this warning takes the place of the normal thanksgiving that
Paul offers. At least of the letters of Paul that we have in the New Testament,
this is the only time Paul omits a thanksgiving. It may be because of the
urgency to get to the point.[24]
It may be because there was nothing for which to thank them, given the
polemical tone.[25]
However, this may be going too far. This section, as a rhetorical strategy, expresses
disgust with the situation in Galatia in a way that has the purpose of getting
them to reconsider their position. Paul conveys his emotional dissatisfaction
with the way things have gone in Galatia. If one approaches the letter from the
perspective ancient rhetorical matters, here begins the exordium.[26]
Paul uses rebuke as expressed in his perplexity in verse 6, vilification in
verse 6c-7, a twofold curse in verses 8-9, and refutation of criticism in verse
10. Remember, all of this is instead of a thanksgiving at the beginning. Paul
finds it shocking that they have become traitors so soon. Verse 10 suggests
that the accusation against him is that he is trying to change the gospel to
make it easier for the Galatians to become Christians. The purpose of Paul here
is to get the Galatian Christians to reconsider their position or at least the
direction they are heading.[27]
I would suggest that if this is the case, Paul must assume that his readers
would not want to make him disgusted.
The
task committed to the community is to protect the Gospel from falsification in
the form of its transformation into “another gospel.” It becomes a
pseudo-Gospel not in accord to the direction of the Lord Jesus Christ, not
under the impulsion of the Holy Spirit, but is novel in its adoption and
conception. The community arbitrarily and independently interprets it, allowing
varying moods, modes of thought, instincts, ideas, and needs of a specific age
to determine the gospel. It robs the Gospel of its original power and significance.[28]
6 I am astonished that you
are so quickly (since 51 AD[29])
deserting the one who called you (not
Paul, but God through Paul) in the grace
of Christ and are turning to a different gospel (eteron euaggelion)— Paul has an indignant law
court style reaction. Galatian churches are in the process of shifting
allegiance from Paul to his opponents. “Deserting” is political language. Yet,
it could also be military language, as soldiers deserting their post. God is
the one who called them through Paul. Their calling was “In the grace of
Christ,” suggesting that they are already saved, so why are they seeking
another way? “A different gospel” means away from grace in Paul’s judgment.[30]
Yes, Paul is surprised they have left the liberating gospel so quickly. Of
course, can you imagine a proper season to turn from the gospel? Yet, his
surprise is just. His surprise is that they have left their freedom so quickly.
The source of their conversion is God and the means is grace rather than
works. We can see even here an implied
antithesis between grace and works.[31]
Paul adds a correction to
what he has just written[32]:
7 not that there is another
gospel (eteron euaggelion), but there are some who are confusing you and, in the opinion of Paul, want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
Paul claims to represent Christian orthodoxy. Paul addresses his converts in
the second person (you) but his opponents in the third person (them).[33]
Paul will make it clear in 5:5 that their insistence upon circumcision is a
significant diversion from the doctrine he preached. He knew the joy of release
from legal bondage. He did want them to take up that bondage again.
8 But even if we or an angel from
heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you,
let that one be accursed! “Anathema” is the
term used here, which refers to a curse upon them, and not directly to
excommunication.[34]
However, some think of this as the first instance of excommunication.[35]
For Paul, such a person should not even receive a hearing.[36]
When Paul refers to “we,” the reference would be to his companions when he
preached there, Silas and Timothy. Paul is asserting the oneness and integrity
of the gospel.[37]
9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims
to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! Paul stresses that they have
received the gospel, an affirmation that they must not regard the gospel as
something unknown, existing in the air, or in their own imaginations. Thus, the
gospel they “received” is the true gospel of Christ. That “gospel” is
sufficiently clear in the writings of Paul.[38]
10 Am I now seeking human
approval, or God's approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still
pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. One way to read this set of
questions is that a Jewish faction accuses Paul of trying to please people,
namely, Gentiles, by making it easier for them by not insisting upon the male
members of the community to receive circumcision. When he refers to “still
pleasing people,” he likely has in mind his efforts before his conversion,
rather than a time when he did preach that circumcision was necessary.
Persuading people is the business Paul is in, but pleasing people is not.[39]
A “different
gospel” was already gaining steam.
Paul begins his
letter to the Galatians by asserting his astonishment that they have turned to
a different gospel. Paul had to distinguish between an orthodox approach to the
gospel message as over against its opponents. Yet, If Paul would have had the
perspective of us who live two millennia later, he might not have been quite so
astonished.
I wonder, however,
if we are willing to face the reality of “another gospel” in our time.
In the Fall of
2012, Harvard Divinity School professor Karen King held a press conference in
which she said she found a piece of papyri, written in Coptic and likely from
around the 300’s AD, that contains a saying of Jesus that refers to “my wife,”
and says that she can be “my disciple.” Scholars already have documentation of
a sect of Christianity that refers to the wife of Jesus that date back to the
100’s AD. People call this little fragment the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife. Scholars
have discovered the Gospel of Judas, Thomas, and Mary Magdalene. Such finds are
valuable historically. However, some people use them to discredit the canonical
gospels or to discredit the process of canonization.
Further, we use
the term “gospel” in another way. To say something is “gospel” is to declare it
true and authentic. If people teach “a different gospel,” they teach something
as true in contrast to something else that has claimed truth. In Galatia, some
teachers have entered the community teaching something quite different from
that which Paul taught them.
One way the
Christian community has always had to test the orthodox character of a teaching
is the conciliar approach. Paul submitted his teaching to the apostles in
Jerusalem. The church in Antioch commissioned him for his missionary enterprise.
If one is unwilling to teach and preach with the humility such behavior shows,
then one is likely going down the path of a different gospel.
If you were to
develop a list of gospels for our time, what would be on the list?
Would the Gospel
of Hate spewed out by Westboro Baptist Church make the list?
Would the Gospel
of Prosperity or Health and Wealth make the list? Jesus cautioned us about the
dangers of wealth.
Dallas Willard
coined the phrase “The Gospel of Sin Management” to describe a gospel whose
concern is to get people into heaven and has little concern for life here and
now, making salvation irrelevant to life now.
The Social Gospel
might make the list. It arose out of an evangelical spirit that wanted to align
this world closer to the will of God, but it also devoted itself to a
particular political ideology and relied on a notion of human progress that was
unrealistic and focused on what human beings can do.
The Gospel of
Positive or Possibility Thinking might make the list. While full of helpful
advice, it seems to have little room for the cross.
The Apocalyptic
Gospel might make the list in that it encourages people to watch in the sky for
the returning Christ while again leading people to disregard this world.
The Fundamentalist
Gospel would seek to freeze some moment of Christianity in the past as somehow
the standard for all ages. The problem here is that churches always need
openness to the fresh winds of the Spirit.
The Progressive
Gospel would seek to move the churches past Christ and into some new age of
nirvana of “progressive” ethics and politics, making it clear that the Bible
and Jesus have become irrelevant to perceived political needs and ideologies of
our time.
Our
time is full of gospels that reflect the culture rather than reflect Jesus.
You can probably
think of other "gospels" that people preach all the time. Of course,
there may be elements of truth in some of these "gospels." That means
we need some prayerful and open reflection on the truth that may seem to us, because
of our own perspective, quite deeply buried in it. In fact, that is the
challenge for each of us. People within the church tend to understand the
gospel through the lens of their time. Such a lens leads to incomplete or
distorted versions of the message of the church. This means churches need to
recalibrate regularly their understanding of the gospel. Paul had himself done
this when he clarified his mission, in contrast to that of Peter and the
Jerusalem church, to bring the gospel to gentiles. Properly read, church
history is full such recalibrations, whether with Augustine, Aquinas, Luther,
John Wesley, Karl Barth, or Mother Teresa.
Paul suggests the
genuine gospel is not of human construction. It comes from God in 1:1, 3-4, and
6.
Paul suggests the
focus of this gospel is grace shown in the death of Jesus that brings
liberation from the sin of this age in 1:3-4.
The true gospel
enables us to become children of God in 1:3.
The true gospel
focuses on transforming the world, which Paul identifies as being a new
creation in 6:15.
Come to think of
it, the true gospel is not so much about our leaving as God coming, in Christ,
to redeem us, to save (liberate, heal, make whole, and guide) us.
Maybe we keep
coming up with new gospels because the one Jesus gave us actually requires
something of us. We lay aside what we want, and focus our thoughts and behavior
on Christ. We lay aside pleasing the groups with which we tend to identify. We
stand with Christ, which means that our devotion to a particular ideology,
which in our time is likely devotion to a political ideology, is something we
need to have the courage to set aside. Such a turn from the thoughts,
ideologies, and agendas that appeal to us and toward identifying ourselves with
Christ sounds like genuine discipleship. It sounds like being a disciple of
Christ in a way that transforms this world.
If a gospel only
benefits the individual, you can bet it is the wrong gospel. A false gospel
always seeks human approval and mostly benefits the human who preaches or
believes it. Paul reminds the Galatians that the real gospel -- the gospel of
what God has done and is doing through Christ -- does indeed benefit us by
saving us from sin and death, but it does not stop there. The real gospel is
the good news that God is transforming us so that we can be part of God's
transformation of the whole cosmos. To put it another way, the gospel is not
about our leaving, but about God's coming! God has saved us by faith for the
purpose God has for us. The gospel is not about pleasing others or even
ourselves; it is all about pleasing God and, like Paul, becoming Christ's
servants (1:10).
One of the African
delegates to General Conference (2016) struck me. Methodist missionaries
brought the gospel to Africa long ago, I am assuming at the end of the 1800s.
Methodism experienced growth over the decades, but has lately exploded in its
growth. It will not surprise me if the number of Methodists in Africa will
exceed the number in America relatively soon. In any case, the delegate
expressed appreciation for bringing the gospel to Africans. Yet, he said that
when he comes to General Conference, it feels like “another gospel” has taken
over in the American branch of Methodism. That saddened me. I hope it saddens
you as well.
In the United
Methodist Church, the Book of Discipline represents our conciliar approach. If
a group does not like something, it can go through the process of changing it.
The resist movement, led by Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter in 2019, is an
arrogant, self-centered, self-righteous, and childish way to get what the
progressive wants when the progressive wants it. The resist movement is
deceptive. It focuses upon one issue, homosexuality, while laboring for a full
range of changes in the views of the church regarding sexuality and marriage.
While pretending to be gospel, progressives within the United Methodist Church
want to appease the larger progressive political ideology of which they long
for this denomination to be a part. Some of the progressives within the
denomination are fully aware that their intention is to lead the United
Methodist Church away orthodox doctrine as well. They then miss-direct by
accusing those who believe what United Methodists have long believed as being
schismatic. They even had the good fortune of having the word “resist” in the
membership vows, thereby labeling anyone who opposes them as favoring evil,
injustice, and oppression. The resist movement is schismatic by its nature, for
it rejects the prayerful and conciliar approach represented in the Book of
Discipline.
In 2016, I did a
run/walk for 4.7 miles for about an hour. A song came up on the Internet radio
program I usually have on, “Against the Wind” by Bob Seger. The phrase that
struck me was at the end:
Against the wind
I'm still runnin' against the wind
I'm older now but still running
Against the wind
The faith we may
have learned from faithful parents, friends, pastors, and teachers should keep
driving us to the Bible and to Jesus. We move away from our opinions and accept
the witness of the New Testament. We move away from the natural danger of
pleasing our tribe to pleasing Christ and living in accord with the apostolic
witness. Such faith must get into the heart, even as it comes from the witness
of others.
When you take that
step of faith, a completely new world opens before you. This new world is a
beautiful one. You start seeing the world differently, as a world that God
loves and therefore you love. You step into a world in which you learn what it
means to love God with all that you are. You love your neighbor. You resist the
works of the flesh and steadily bear the fruit of the Spirit.
1:11-2:21 Paul
Offers a Narrative Defense of His Gospel and Apostleship: An Autobiographical
Sketch.
Paul
emphasizes that he received the gospel by revelation at his conversion. He
reviews his life in Judaism. He stresses the divine source of his gospel,
something the leaders of Jerusalem acknowledged. Paul has a concern that his
opponents deny the independent status of his apostleship.
Aristotle
stresses that some introductions are “remedial,” concerned with the speaker,
the hearer, the subject, or the opponent of the speaker. The purpose of such an
introduction is to direct or remove prejudice. The appeal to the hearer aims at
securing goodwill or arousing resentment. The appeal to hearers aims at
securing their goodwill, or at arousing their resentment, or sometimes at
gaining their serious attention to the case. Such an introduction may also seek
to convince the audience of your good character, or that the course of action
is in their interest. Such a remedial introduction is an attempt to gain an
appropriate hearing.[40]
He goes on to say that one will not usually need deliberative rhetoric, for the
facts do not need introduction. However, one may have to give an account of
oneself or of one’s opponents. One may have to excite or dispel some prejudice,
or make the matter under discussion seem more or less important than before.[41]
In this case, of course, Paul is wanting to heighten the importance of the
matter that he sees needs discussion. Further, Aristotle says one can dispel
objectionable suppositions about oneself, which is clearly what Paul feels the
need to do in this section.[42]
Aristotle also writes of narration, which usually involves the character of the
speaker and stirring the emotions of the listeners.[43]
If one pays attention to this section, Paul clearly tries to engage his readers
emotionally, along with defending his character. Aristotle also says that in
deliberative rhetoric, narration is useful only to recall past events that will
help listeners make better plans for the future. In this case, if his readers
regain confidence that Paul is an apostle sent from God, it will strengthen the
case he makes for the gospel that he preaches.
The theme of
Galatians 1:11-12, in a segment that extends to verse 24, describes the
authentic gospel that Paul proclaimed, which stands in contrast to “a different
gospel” to which the churches in Galatia were “turning.” In the context of
1:11-2:21, it constitutes his first defense of his apostleship and gospel,
referring to the divine source of the gospel and the confirmation he received
from the leaders of the church in Jerusalem.
Paul’s anxiety is
obvious, for he is “astonished” by the speed at which they were deserting his
gospel and opting for a perverted gospel. Perhaps even more shocking is that
they were turning to an inauthentic gospel and aligning themselves with orators
who sought “human approval” and desired “to please people” (cf. Galatians
1:6-10).
Tolmie says this
is phase three of the argument, recounting events from his life in order to
prove the divine origin of his gospel. Betz classifies Galatians 1:12-2:14 as narratio, since, in his opinion, it
corresponds to Cicero's definition of a narratio
in De inv. 1.19, namely a narrative
that functions as an exposition of events, which have occurred or are supposed
to have occurred. Furthermore, Betz indicates that one can classify Galatians
1:12-2:14 as the first of three types of narratio
distinguished by Cicero, namely one that contains an exposition of a case of
law. Significantly, Betz states explicitly that exordium and narratio are
only preparatory steps leading to the probatio
that begins in Galatians 3:1. If one is to go with Betz here, one will have
to accept the diminished role of 1:6-10 and 1:11-2:14. Yet, I think an open
reading of the letter will not allow us to move down this path with him.
Kennedy argues that Betz is wrong here because the passage does not offer an account
of the facts at issue. He argues that the point is to contribute to their
understanding of the speaker, which would match his view of Galatians as
deliberative rhetoric. The point is that the passage confirms the authority of
Paul, not present the case. If Paul were making a forensic appeal, one would
expect a description of how the missionary opponents came into being and of
their history of troublemaking in Galatia. Tolmie points out that if this were
narration, this section would be merely preparatory for the real argument,
which then diminishes the passage. In addition, it would be strange, if Paul
were as acquainted with ancient rhetoric as much as Betz thinks, that Paul uses
narration only here in his extant
letters. The point Paul is making in this section is that the gospel is of
divine origin. What Paul means is that here is a decisive eschatological
revelation that made Jesus Christ the foundation and content of his gospel. His
rhetorical argument, then, is the notion of divine authorization. He received
his gospel from God, and therefore it is true. The occurrence of “gospel” seven
times in verses 6-12 demonstrates that it, and not his apostleship, is at
issue. Of course, people use and abuse such arguments frequently. He will need
to substantiate his claim, which he does by recounting events from his life. He
uses biography as proof. He uses hyperbole in this approach, exaggerating his
activities against the church in order to make his case. His point is to show
that his calling by God was a dramatic transformation. He stresses revelation.
He uses language consistent with the prophetic tradition. In making such an
argument, he is “legitimizing” his gospel. Jerusalem, in this case, plays a
different role for him than it apparently did for his opponents. For his
opponents, Jerusalem held the basis for their authority. For Paul, Jerusalem
represented human origins, but that clearly, a divine origin takes priority. He
emphasizes the long period between his call and his first visit to Jerusalem. When
he finally went to Jerusalem, his purpose was to acquaint himself with them,
not to receive their sanction. His fifteen-day stay in Jerusalem, while
significant, has its contrast with the three years in Arabia. The positive
reception of his calling and missionary activity says that they acknowledged
what God was doing, and was not authorization for him, which given the
rhetorical setting would be disastrous. If the churches later change their
mind, it does not change the divine origin they recognized at first.
These are the
primary points that Paul considers and examines in 1:11-24. The gospel Paul
preaches is from God. Consequently, after briefly rehearsing his concerns in
1:6-10, he begins to elaborate on a crucial focus of his letter to the
Galatians. He defends himself and his message. Stated succinctly, Paul develops
the themes he introduces in the letter’s opening.
In verses 11-12,
Paul begins with a claim of divine authorization of his gospel.[44] 11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that
the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin [kata
anqrwpon]; 12 for I did not receive it from a human
source [para
anqrwpou], nor was I taught it, but I received it through a
revelation of Jesus Christ. First, some think that the criticism of Paul
contained in these two verses shape the structure of the letter, but in reverse
order. Thus, in 1:13-2:21, Paul shows that his gospel does not have a human
source, and in 3:1-6:10 it is not of human origin. Paul thus makes it clear
that the gospel is not a philosophy of human origins, but is rooted in “a revelation
of Jesus Christ.” Second, this use of revelation clearly refers to experiences
of revelation, in contrast to the apocalyptic notion of revelation we find in
verse 16. He becomes aware of the centrality of salvation by grace and through
faith, although he will spend time in the church reflecting upon the
theological implication of this truth. It took a revolution from God to
convince him of its truth.[45] Paul has received instruction from this
revelation alone.[46]
Third, one can compare this account with what Luke says in Acts 9, 22, and 26,
where Luke shows the intertwining of divine and human (Ananias) agency in the
conversion of Paul. Fourth, Martin Luther notes how easily one can depart from
the teaching of justification by faith. He knows how quickly a person can
forfeit the joy of the Gospel. He knows in what slippery places even those who
seem to have a good footing in the matters of faith. In the midst of the
conflict, when we should be consoling ourselves with the Gospel, the Law rears
up and begins to rage all over our conscience. For him, the Gospel is frail
because we are frail. What makes matters worse, he says, is that one-half of
ourselves, our own reason, stands against us. Thus, we have something within us
that wants to depart from the notion of justification by faith. He then urges
that every believer carefully learn the Gospel. Let believers continue in
humble prayer, for mighty foes molest them, foes who never grow tired of
warring against us. These, our enemies, are many: Our own flesh, the world, the
Law, sin, death, the wrath and judgment of God, and the devil himself. He goes
on to refer to a conversation he had with Doctor Staupitz when he first began
preaching justification by faith. “I like it well, that the doctrine which you
proclaim gives glory to God alone and none to man. One can never ascribe too
much glory, goodness, and mercy d unto God.” For Luther, such words comforted
and confirmed him. The Gospel is true because it deprives human beings of all
glory, wisdom, and righteousness and turns over all honors to the Creator
alone. For Luther, it is safer to attribute too much glory to God than to
humanity. The problem with such sentiments, however, is that it runs the risk
of denigrating the world God has made, and in particular, the creatures made in
the image of God. Further, we also learn from John 3:16 that God loves this
world. Of course, we need to offer due honor to God, but we do not honor God by
not also honoring the world God has made.
[1]
Tolmie (p. 31).
[2]
Lightfoot
[3]
Calvin
[4]
F. F. Bruce
[5]
Betz
[6]
Barth (Church Dogmatics, IV.1 [61.4],
637).
[7]
Luther
[8]
John Chrysostom
[9]
Lightfoot
[10]
Barth (Church Dogmatics, IV.1 [61.4]
638).
[11]
Calvin
[12]
Calvin
[13]
Betz
[14]
Betz
[15]
Betz
[16]
Lightfoot
[17]
Lightfoot
[18]
Barth (Church Dogmatics, IV.1 [61.4]
637).
[23]
Rhetoric, 1380a.
[25]
P. T. O’Brien (Introductory
Thanksgivings, 1977).
[26]
Tolmie rejects this approach.
[28]
Barth (Church Dogmatics, IV.3 [72.3],
818).
[29]
Lightfoot
[36]
Calvin
[37]
Lightfoot
[40] Rhetoric, 1415a.
[41]
Ibid., 1415b.
[42]
Ibid., 1416a.
[43]
Ibid., 1416b and 1417b.
[44]
Tolmie
[45]
Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Vol
I, 209).
[46]
Barth (Church Dogmatics, IV.1 [61.4],
637).
No comments:
Post a Comment