Galatians a Commentary - Paul Tarazi

8/16/2019 Galatians a Commentary - Paul Tarazi

1/28

ORTHODOX BIBLICAL STUDIES

Paul Nadim Tar azi


2/28

& i a / t

T S J l

O R T H O D O X B IB LIC A L S T U D IE S

GALATIANS A C o m m e n t a r y

P a u l N a d i m T a r a z i

H I h L c of a c i;l t a t »-a ut- t ko iocwi o r t o d o x a

••PArklAKMri. Jl'STINIAN"

TjO* b i b l i o t e c a

**p ţ& if

^ , * y

ST VLADIMIR’S SEMINARY PRESSCRESTWOOD, NEW YORK 10707

1999


3/28

L i b n ry o f Congres* Catxloging'in-Pbbltcariofi Dau T a ra . fa d Nadim, 1943-

Gahrfanr a ooînmcntaiy / by Paul Nadim Tarazi f cm. — (Orthodox biblica! studtcs)

Indodes bibliographical ncfcrenccs and indexes.

fSBN 0-88141-083-7

1. BMe. N.T. Galarians— Commentaries. I. Bible. N.T. Galatians. Greek & £ ag ti L 1994. II. Tide. III. Series.

BSX*5JiT37 1994.4077—-


4/28

Introduction*

When and why did the aposde Paul writc Galatians? The answer to thescquestions depends on the answer to another: To whom did Paul write Galatians?Biblical scholars are divided as to whether he wrote this epistle to churches hefounded in the Southern central pan o f Asia Minor during his first missionary

journey (Acts 13-14), or to churches he would have established in the region o fGalatia proper (around Ancyra, modern Ankara) during his second such journey (Acts 16 :6-8). Taking the Roman province as their point o f reference, theycal! the first hypothesis the “South Galatian theory” and the second the “NorthGalatian theory.”1

The choice o f one or the other depends on the determination o f how manytimes Paul visited the addressees o f this episde before writing to them. If he didso only once, then the South Galatian theory must be rejected bccause Actsreports that he did visit the cides o f that area several times. On the other hand,if he sojoumed among these “Galatians” more than once before writing to them,then the North Galatian theory is hardly plausible. Acts makes no mentioneven of the evangelization of North Galatia and leaves Iittle room in Paulsschedule for several trips there that were inexplicably ignored or forgotten.

Th e A mbiguous t 6 npârepov

The key text potentially leading to a resolution of the problem is a highly con-troversial one in Gal 4 :1 3 . There the apostle reminds his addressees o f the timewhen he evangelized them “ro nporepov” Scholars draw diffcrent conclu-sions from this remark because the expression râ TTpoT€pou is ambiguous: it

can mean either “the first time” as compared to subsequent occasions or simply“previously.” Those who opt for the former meaning usually cite it in supportof the view that Paul made at least two visits to the churches of Galatia beforewriting this letter.2 Many even claim to base their conclusion primarily uponthis adverb. But the fact that either meaning of t o rrpoTepoi>is defensible in itself belies this claim and indicates they have actually based their decision onother factors— presumably their own unsubstantiated presuppositions.3

I believe it possible to find a solution more solidly based upon the text ofGalatians by beginning with the less controversial €urjyyeĂi adu T]i>(I evange

lized /1 proclaimed the gospel) in Gal 4:13. For Paul this verb means specifi-

1

i


5/28

2 G a l a t i a n s

cally “to announce the gospel ro rhosc who have nor ycr received it” (see Rom15:19-20 and 2 Cor 10:13-16; also 1 Cor 9:18 ; Gal 1:8-9), and thc book ofActs confirms that his usage is typical of the carly church in generai.

The author of Acts is very carefiil to distinguish between two kinds o f mis-sionary activity: (a) proclaiming the gospel to those who have not yet heard it;and (b) exhorting rhe believers ofalready established churches. The descriptionof Pauls first missionary journey presents an example of the former. There weread that the Gentiles of Pisidian Antioch “believed” when they heard the wordo f the Lord and became “disciples” (13:48 , 52). Shortly thereafter Paul and hiscompanions spoke in the synagogue at Iconium “in this manner so that a greatcompany believed, both o f Jews and ofGreeks” (14:1) . Then the missionaries

proceeded to Lystra and Derbe “and there they were evangelizing” (v.7). Hav-ing “evangelized” Derbe and having “made many disciples there, they returned

to Antioch (v.21).

The presentation o f the apostles return to these cities sounds quite different.The missionaries “returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strength-ening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to remain in the faith, andsaying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom o f God"(l4:2 1b-2 2). This was definitely not an “evangelizing” trip. Its goal was ratherto “strengthen" those who were already believers by exhorting them to “remain

in the faith” (see also in 16:5 the description o f the following visit to the samecommunities). That the author of Acts deliberately maintained this distinctionbetween evangelization and strengthening or exhortation is confirmed by thefact that he used the expression “to speak the word” only in reference to Pergaon the way back (v.25). This synonym for “to evangelize” was appropriate inthat case because nothing had been said about evangelical activity in Perga,apparently because it was the city where John Mark broke off and returned to

Jerusalem (see 13:13-14).

If, then, “I evangelized” in Gal 4:13 can only refer to a once-for-all activity in

a given locality, then t o nporepou would seem unnecessary there whether itmeans “the first time” out o f several or merely “previously.” But there it is inthe sentence and it must have a fiinction! I believe its use was dictated by themain thought of w. 13-14, the theme of friendship. Paul wanted to stress thatthe friendship between him and the Galatians went way back to his first en-counter with them; it began long before they were lured into this relativelyrecent “friendship” with his opponents (see v.17). In such a context t o nporepot' serves to enhance the contrast between their old friendship with Paul and theirnew, untested one with his opponents.

However, it is highly unlikely that Paul would have used this adverb unlessthere had been more than one encounter between him and the Galatians.tain other factors render this conclusion inescapable. If the apostle had visite


6/28

Introduct'ton 3

the Galatians only once, then the joum ey would have bcen his original mission

to them. In that case, the remark you are desening the one who cal led you so qui ckl y / so soon o f 1 :6 would mean his opponents had begun their work

immediately after his evangelization trip.* And then the consistent use o f the

present tense in verbs referring to the activity of these opponents would signify

that Galatians was written at nearly the same time. But this would render t o

TrpOT€pov in 4:13 both logically and fiinctionally superfluous and incompre-

hensible: logically, since the extremely short period between the Galatians’

evangelization and the writing of the letter would have rendered an adverb

stressing the length o f time between the two com pletely unwarranted; and func-

tionally, since the Galatians’ friendship with Paul would have been practically

concurrent with their “friendship” with his opponents.Therefore, the remark in 1:6 (“you are deserting the One who called you so

qui ckl y 1) presents a real difRculty for those who believe Paul made only one

visit to Galatia prior to writing this epistle. Some comm entators circumvent

this problem by suggesting the expression is meant “rhetorically,” that it bears

no chronological connotation but rather is intended solely to stress the irre-

sponsible “rashness” of the Galatians’ decision.5 This is plainly a forced solu-

tion, necessitated only by the assumption that “so quickly” must refer to the

time elapsed between the Galatians’ reception of the gospel and the arrival among

them o f Paul’s opponents. A doser examination of the text in question will

reveal that such an assumption is both unnecessary and incorrect.

I will begin by pointing out that the “so quickly” o f 1:6 does indeed refer to

the time elapsed between the writing o f Galatians and an immediately prior

visit to Galatia by Paul. This is clear from its immediate context, the paragraph

consisting of w .6- 9:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you in the gracc of Christ and arc turning to a difFerent gospel (v.6). Not that there is another gospel, but there arc some who are troubling you and who want to pervert the gospel of Christ (v.7). But even if we or an angcl from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to that which wc proelaimed to you, lct him bc accurscd (v.8). As we have

said before, so now I say again: if anyonc is prcaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you have receivcd, lct him bc accurscd (v.9).

This is one passage united around a single thought. Paul’s main message

here is the curse of w .8 -9 , for which w .6 -7 serve as a kind of introduction.6

More precisely, the main message is the curse of v.9, as evidenced by the em-

phatic “I say again” following the em phatic “we have said before.” It is this last

phrase that ties the whole passage to the immediate past.

In order to determine prccisely what is meant by the past pcrfcct upoeipipcaf id ' (wc have said before), onc must begin by noting that Paul does sccm to diiTcrcntiatc bctwccn the aorist and the pcrfcct in his usc of the verb \ i y i o (to say) and its cognatc

7TpoXeyo (to say beforehand). In both of the two placcs whcrc hc uses the aorist


7/28

4 G a l a t ia n s

form (Gal 5 :21; 1 The* 4:6), iţ appaicntly rcfcrs to ihings said during his original evangelization of those he is writing to, not to rcmarks made sometirnc in thc morc

immcdiate past (whether during a subsequent personal visit or earlier in thc epistlc).? The perfect, on the other hand, does refer to the immcdiate past:

1) 2 Cor 13:2 offers thc dearest example: npoeîprpea (I have said before) introduces something Paul said to the Corinthians previously whilc “present" during a "second" visit (as compared to an immincnt third one; sec v.l), something which he is saying again “now" though “absent."*

2) That TrpO€Îpr)Ka (I have said before) in 2 Cor 7:3 rcfcrs to 6:1 1-13 of the same letter can be dcduced from the contents of the two passages.’

3) Rom 9 :2 9 furnishes thc last example. Although irpoeipryGV (he has said before)

there is usually translatcd “prophesied’’ or “prcdicted,"10 such a translation does not fit the context. In chs .9-11 this word is primarily used as one of cwo main ways to introduce scriptura) quotations: (a) whenever there is no mention o f an author, thc quotation is introduccd with “it is/was/has been writtcn";" and (b) whenever the name of an author is mentioncd (even if it is God as in 9:25 or scripture as in 10 :11) , it appears as the subjcct of Âeyei (hc/she/it says).12 Rom 9:2 9 dearly fits thc second pattern insofar as “Isaiah has said before" is a form o f “Isaiah says." As for the fâct that irpoeipT\ K€V (has said before) is an unusual form, I am convinced that Paul chose it bccausc he is quoting out o f sequence . His interest in maintaining proper scqucncc when quoting from scripture is shown by 10:20-21 where he presents two passages from Isaiah in thc same order in which they appear în that Oldlestament book (first 65 :1 , then 65 :2). But thc two quotations in Rom 9:27-2 9 are out of

order: w .27-28 quote Is 10 :22-23, whilc v.29 quotes Is 1:9. Hence, Paulsquotation formula thcrc means “in the book of Isaiah the following quotation actually is found before thc onc I just quoted."

The first of these thrcc examples represents thc dosest parallel to Gal 1:9 (note especially the equivalent adverbs v w in 2 Corinthians and p n in Galatians, both of which mean “now"). That being the casc, Paul must have issued the curse introduced by “we have said” and “I say again" in Gal 1:8-9 whilc present among thc Galatian Christians in the rclatively recent past.

Since, then, “so quickly” in 1:6 is directly linked to 1:8-9 as part of thc samepassage, it must refer to the surprisingly short time between Pauls issuance ofthis curse during his last visit to Galatia and his writing of Galatians. And inthat case one cannot dismiss this temporal adverb as a rhetorical device devoidof temporal meaning in order to resolve the problems created by the assump-tion that Pauls last visit to Galatia took place when he evangelized the area.

Thus, Paul made at least onc “strengthening’* trip to Galatia, and during themost recent one he had to deal with a controvcrsy which caused him to issue acurse against all who would prodaim a “different gospel." No doubt the matterwas setded tcmporarily—certainly he would not have left unless he fdt certaindur all serious threats to the success of his gospel in rhe Galatian communities

had been neutralized. But then shortly after his departure. news reached himthat the Galatians were again being swaycd by the preachers o f a different


8/28

Introducrion 5

gospel.” That provoked him io wrice this epistle and express his “astonish-ment” that they could abandon the gospel hc brought them “so quickly" after

he left them.13

The Addressees o f Galatians

We can now move to the question of precisely who Pauls addressees were. Actsdoes report that Paul visited “Phrygia and the Galatian region” twice (16:6 and18:23), but this is of little help unless: (a) the expression “Galatian region" inActs has the same meaning as “Galatia" in Pauls epistle; and (b) it is possible todetermine the precise meaning of the geographical reference in Acts. As for thefirst of these two issues, certain striking similari des between the text of Galatians

and that of Acts concerning Pauls cal! and early apostolic activity, strongly sug-gest that the two authors used the word “Galatia” to refer to the same area.

The first similarity concerns the locale of Pauls call. After his caii (Gal1:13ff.), Paul journeyed to Arabia and then “again retumedto Damascus” (v. 17).Although there is no other mention of Damascus in Galatians, we can inferfrom such a remark that before his departure for Arabia he had been there. Andsince the main purpose of the passage in which it occurs (1:11-2:10) is to provethe validity of his apostleship, we can also infer that this first stay in Damascustook place after his call. Acts corroborates these condusions by reporting no

less than three times (chs.9, 22, 26) that his call took place in the vicinity ofDamascus.

The second similarity is lexical. The quotation recorded in Gal 1:23 (“Hewho once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once ravaged”) seems tohave come from a source known also to the author of Acts.M The only otherNew Testament occurrence of the verb TropOui (to ravage) is in Acts 9:21, theretoo on the lips of those who have heard about a radical change in Pauls attitudetoward Christians. Moreover, the saying quoted in Gal 1:23 contains an oddityin that m an $ (faith) serves simultaneously as the direct object of jropddH (toravage) and euayyeÂt'Cofiai (to prodaim the gospel). It must then bear two

meanings at once, both of them unusual: the Christian community on the onehand, and the gospel message on the other.15 This cannot be explained excepton the basis of the word usage of the early church as reflected in the text of Acts.In Acts 6:7 “the word of God,” “the disciples,” and “faith” appear to be syn-onyms, and similar combinadons occur in 9:31 and 19:20. In this way bothGal 1:23 and Acts effectively equate the preached word of God with its result,the Christian community.

The third area of similarity has to do with the content of Pauls iniţial preaching. In Gal 1:11-12 the apostle alludes to a “revelation of Jesus Christ” he has

experienced: “... the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a


9/28

6 CiAlAriANS

revelat ion o f Jesus Christ. Since he has just presented Jesus Christ as the agento f his apostleship (1:1), and since the whole point of the passage is to discusj

the origin of his gospel, the logical conclusion is that Paul means Jesus Chrisţrevealed the gospel to him. Yet just a few verses later he says this same eventhappened because God decided “to reveal his Son in me” (w. 15-16).16 Hesurprises the reader by asserting not only that the revelation he received wasGods act of revealing “His Son” (rather than Jesus Christ s act of revealing thegospel) but also that the resultingcommission was to preach “him” (rather than“the gospel") among the Gentiles. Strangcly enough, the only place where thetitle “Son o f God” occurs in Acts is in 9:20— as part of the same passage de-scribing Pauls stay in Damascus which contains a quotation (in v.21) remark-ably similar to the one cited in Gal 1:23.

The fourth item that reflects a strong link between Galatians and Acts is theuse of evOetos* (immediately). In Gal 1:16 the negation of the verb after thisadverb creates a sentence which sounds as odd in Greek as it does in Engiish(“... immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood ... ). The translators ofthe Revised Standard Version found it so incomprehensible that they actuallydropped the word “immediately” altogether! However, neither this adverb norits cognate ev6vs* is found anywhere else in the Pauline writings, so there mustbe a good reason why Paul used it here. Indeed, the subordinating conjunctiono re (when) appears in a position o f emphasis at the beginning o f the sentence

covering w. 15-17, so timing is criticai to this line of argument. The puzzle canbe solved only by concluding that the word “immediately” logically applies tothe positive statement “I went away to Arabia” although the latter is separatedfrom the former by several intervening phrases.

Pauls purpose in w. 15-17 is to prove the divine origin of his apostolic au-thority by ruling out the possibility of a human origin. Hence, he insists thatafter his call he did not consult with any human authorities regarding his gospel, not even the apostles in Jerusalem. Yet the fact that he did go to Arabia isthe compelling proof that he did not go to Jerusalem. So the departure forArabia is actually the main subject of the sentence, while the author’s main

intention in writing it is to say that he did not go to Jerusalem. That explainsthe strânge sentence construction: the weight of the main intention in theapostles mind is so overwhelming that to emphasize it he has deliberately usedthe indicative in the first part of the sentence instead of participles. In otherwords, instead of writing, “immediately, without Consulting flesh and blood orgoing up to Jerusalem... I went away to Arabia,” he has written what we find »nGalatians in order to stress the fact that he did not go to Jerusalem (for moreevidence supporting this conclusion, see my comments on 1:16b).

Turning to Acts, only one of all the occurrences there of evOeutg (immedi-

ately; 9:18, 20, 34; 10:16; 12:10; 16:10; 17:10, 14; 21:30; 22:29) is not aelf-explanatory. That one is in 9:20— once again, as part of the same passage men-


10/28

Introduction 7

tioned abovc which speaks about Pauls activities after his conversion:

[After Paul s baptism] hc was with the discipics in Damascus for several days, andimmediately {eufe'cjs) in the synagogucs he proclaimed Jcsus, saying that he was thcSon o f God. And all who heard were amazcd and said, “Is not this the man whowrcaked havoc (nopOijaas) in Jcrusalem among those who called on this namc?And hc has come hcrc for this purposc, to bring them bound before thc chief priests."But Saul incrcascd all the morc in strength and confounded the Jcws who lived inDamascus by proving that Jcsus was thc Christ (w.l9b-22).

Considered in itself—completely without reference to Galatians— this para-graph contains three unusual features:

1) The verb nopOai (to wreak havoc /to ravage) occurs nowherc else in Acts.

2) The title “Son of God” occurs nowhere else in Acts. Besides that, thestatement containing it is out of step with the otherwise directly parallel onetwo verses later in which the title given Jesus is “Christ.”

3) The use of the adverb cOdeu)? (immediately) is quite unexpected andawkward after the mention of a stay with the disciples for several days.

As I have pointed out, each of these features has a parallel in Galatians.Considered in conjunction with Gal 1:23, the first one serves as clear evidencethat some kind of literary connection exists between Acts and Galatians. Con-sidered in conjunction with Gal 1:16, the second two not only confirm that but

also point to the nature of the connection: Galatians must actually have servedas a direct literary source for the author of Acts. Indeed, the expression “Son o fGod” is at the heart of Pauls gospel, but it occurs only here in Acts. Likewisc,evdeutg (immediately) is the cornerstone o f Pauls argument in Galatians, yet itis out o f place in Acts.17

A fifth and final point of similarity between Galatians and Acts leads to thesame condusion. In Acts 15:41 the report of Pauls move to Syria and Ciliciadescribes that region with an expression uncharacteristic of Acts but word forword identical to that used in Gal 1:21.18 Acts, which systematically has only

one definite article before a series of names of geographical regions (1:8; 8:1;9:31; 15:3, 23; 16:6; 18:23; 27:5), has rf]v Zvpiav Kai TT)i> KiĂitaai' (the Syria and the Cilicia) in 15:41. Moreover, that trip was undertaken to “strengthenthe churches” of the area, but nowhere in Acts is the evangelization of Ciliciamentioned. Where could such information have come from? As it is, theremark in 15:41 “fits” neither in the immediate context nor in that of thc wholcof Acts; indeed, it looks like a meteorite that landed there from “another world”!In a sense it did, for this “other world” is none other than Pauls epistle to thcGalatians.

If, then, thc author of Acts was indeed acquainted with Galatians. there isgood reason to believe that his reports of Paul s travels through thc “Galatianregion” (16:6 and 18:23) refer to thc same area Paul himsclf mcans by thc namc


11/28


12/28

Introduction 9

they would have raken such an appeliation as an insult. To begin with, this isdefinitely too subjective an argument, impossible to prove or disprove. In addi-

tion, the fact that the epistle is explicitly addressed wto the churches of Galatia”— i.e., to many communities at the same time— shows that it was intendedfrom the beginning to be a circular letter for which Paul had to find an all*encompassing term to address its recipients. In those days one did not simplytype a form letter into a computer and have it prinţ out multiple copies, eachwith a personalized salutation. A “circular” was rather a single letter meant tobe read in many places by many people, each person passing the same letter onto the next. Hand-written copies could on occasion be made, but the urgencyof the matter discussed in Galatians would not have allowed the time required

for that. This is confirmed by the fact that Paul wrote at least the last part of theletter— if not all of it— with his own hand (6 :11).21

The Jerusalem Council

Having established the identity of Pauls addressees and the fact that he visitedthem at least twice, we need to deal with just one more issue before going on todiscuss his reason for writing this epistle: does the Jerusalem council reportedin Acts 15 bear any direct relationship to the Galatian controversy? There areseveral indications that it does:

1) The synodal letter which resulted from that meeting was addressed “to thebrethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia” (15:23).This indudes the area of South Galatia to which Galatians is addressed.

2) On the basis of that letter, the Jerusalemite prophets Judas and Silas “ex-horted and strengthened” the brethren (15:32-33). These two verbs “to ex-hort” and “to strengthen” also appear together in 14:22 in reference to thechurches in Lystra, Derbe, and Pisidian Antioch (v.21)— the South Galatiandties.22 The verb “to strengthen” occurs in only two other places, both o f whichalso refer to the South Galatia area: (a) it describes what Paul and Silas did on

their trip through “Syria and Cilicia” in 15:41 (the same verse which containsevidence of a literary dependcnce on Gal 1:21); and (b) in 18:23 it occurs along-side one of the two references to “the Galatian region and Phrygia.”

3) In Gal 2:5 Paul reminds his addressees that what he did at thc meeting in Jerusalem, he did “in order that the truth o f the gospel might be preserved foryou.” Every other interpreter we have read understands this remark as arhetori- caldevice on Pauls part with which he is trying to impress on thc Galatians thatultimately the struggle he undertook in Jerusalem was for their sake. This isanother case of a forced interpretation necessitated by a presupposition which

cannot be substantiated. The common assumption is that thc “Galatian controversy” had no relation whatsoevcr to Pauls meeting with thc Jerusalemiteauthorities. Yct at face value Gal 2:5 simply mcans that the struggle at Jerusa-


13/28


14/28

Introduction 11

without his former companion to “srrengthen” the churches of South Galatia

before pushing on to new shores for che gospel. In the process he was fbllowedby his old nemesis, the “opponents,” who would continue to trail him even tothe far city of Corinth.

In spiţe of all this, he kept his promise to “remember the poor," and at theend of his “second” journey he went up to Jerusalem to carry the offeringsgathered in the Gentile churches. Actually, the way the “second” and “third"

journeys are so tightly linked in Acts (see 18:22-23) is a dear sign that the breakbetween them is more apparent than real. It is not that Paul went up to Jerusalem at the end of his “second” journey, but rather his trip to Jerusalem consti-

tuted a kind of intermezzo to his one deutero-trito-journey.Meanwhile, his opponents had renewed their agitation in the churches ofthe South Galatian cities, and these churches were in need of more guidancefrom their founding apostle. Whether he decided while at Jerusalem to visit hisGalatian churches on the way to Ephesus and sojourned in Antioch on the waythere, or while at Antioch he heard of the opponents’ activities in those churches,the fact remains that they were indeed active there. (Evidence for this is theotherwise unwarranted use of “strengthening” in Acts 18:23, which suggeststhose believers needed to be strengthened again regarding the issue discussed atthe Jerusalem synod, even though Paul had already done so at the beginning of

his “second” journey.)Having strengthened the brethren in Galatia and having made sure that

matters were straightened out there, Paul proceeded to Ephesus. But upon hisarrival (ca. 54 A.D.), news reached him that they were again— and so soon!—vacillating with regard to his gospel. That put him on the spot and forccd himto write in his own hand (6:11) this uniquely fiery letter using every possiblemeans to convince them not to let themselves be “bewitched” (3:1). But whathappened after his departure? What was the opponents’ new point of attackand why was it so effective?

The Purpose o f Galatians

Any attempt to find an answer to the question of why Galatians was writtenmust begin with the passage 1:6-10, which directly addresses the actual situa-tion in the Galatian churches. Let us carefully reexamine w.8-9 in particular:

But even if wc or an angcl from heaven should prodaim to you a gospel contrary to that which wc prodaimed to you, lct him bc accurscd (v.8). As wc have said before, so now I say again: if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you have rcccived, lct him bc accurscd (v.9).

V.9 should have becn sufficient to express Pauls reaction to the opponents’renewed assault; indeed, he is repeating here a curse he already issued while inGalatia. Why then the addition of v.8, which rephrases that curse in such a way


15/28

12 G a l a t ia n s

as io make it apply co two purely hypothetical cases? At first glance one might

assume that v.8 functions as an enhancement to v.9, emphasizing that the curseis absoluteiy irrevocable because. if need be, it would even hit a divine messen-ger!27 A closer look, howcvcr, will reveal that the stress is actually on the “we.”Most commentators believe this word is simply paraJlelled to “an angel fromheavcn” in order to suggest that thc curse applies to any kind of mcsscngcr. Butin that case its usc would be borh superfluous and inexplicably awkward since:(a) thc idea that v.8 enhances v.9 is suggested by the mention of the divinemessenger, so thc indusion also of human messengers adds nothing to the argument; and (b) the whole grammatical structurc of the curse in v.8 applies to“angel” and not to “we.”28 Other scholars believe “we” refers not only to Paul

and his co-workers but also to persons present at thc carlier occasion when heoriginally issued the curse of v.9. But this is too far-fetched. In cither casc, whywould Piui indude himself? Whatever commentators say about this being acase of rhetorical hyperbole is unconvincing, especially when one considers thatthc main purpose of this letter is to defend unequivocally Pauls aposdeship andhis gospel. V.8 as it stands can wcll mean that he could be wrong, whereas thewholc thesis of Galatians is that in no way, shape or form is hc wrong!

There is but one satisfactory answer to this dilemma: at thc time of writing,Paul stands accused by his opponents of prcaching on given occasions preciselythat which he is now adamantly refusing even to consider. The nature of that

accusation can be inferred from the text of Gal 5:1-12, a passage which is in-serted between Pauls theological apologia (1:11-4:31 ) and his section ofexhor-tation (5:13-6:10). This passage is parallel to 1:6-10 in that it constitutes theonly other place in Galatians dealing with the actual situation in Galatia (theopponents’ and the Galatians’ behavior) as well as his harsh reaction to it.

That thc two are dosely relatcd and speak of the same situation îs shown by the following:

1 )They are thc only places in the cntirc epistle where second person plural indicative present verbs are combined with present active participlcs referring to the opponents.

2) Both contain an emphatic warning by Paul about dire consequenccs if thc Galatians proceed on their present course of action (1:9 and 5:2; see also 5:3).

3) The vocabulary used in thc two is similar in many ways: (a) both refer to God as “the one who cails” (1 :6 and 5 :8 );” (b) both usc “grace" to describe thc nature of thc Galatians* call (1:6; 5:4, and nowhere else); (c) both refer to thc opponents’ activity with thc verb Tapdaato (to trouble), a verb which occurs nowhere else in the entire Paulinc corpus; (d) both times rapâoaio is in thc form of an active present participle followed by “you” as thc direct objcct; (e) the two passages use thc nearly synonymous words avdQeţia (anathema/cursc; 1:8, 9) and Kpiţia (judgment; 5:10) to describe the pcnalty thc “troublers" will suffcr; ( 0 both contain thc verb m i t o

(to convince/persuade), a word which appears only in 1:10, 5:7, and 5:10; (g) Pauls usc of rreîOu) with himself as thc subject in 1:10 and 5 :10 is unique in the Pauline


16/28


17/28

14G a l a t ia n s

contradictory to the main thrust of the immediately preceeding section, specifi-cally the assertion that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles (15:1-35).This is aii the more apparent when one takes inco considcration the fact thatthis last position was at the heart of the message of Acts (the typically “Lukan*passage 10:1-11:18 even makes Peter out to be the early champion o f this spe- 'cifically Pauline stand). Moreover, the story of Timothy s circumcision seems !out of place; it neither introduces nor even fits with the immediately subse-quent text which obviously refers back to the account of the Jerusalem councilin 15:1 -35. The only plausible way to explain its presence, then, is to concludethat it was added actually to rtfute Pauls opponents’ accusation that his stand

against the necessity of circumcision for Gentiles stemmed from a deşire to“make things casier” for them.

This was how some Jewish Christians, not to mention non-ibelieving Jews,wanted to portray Paul—as one who was merely employing an “easy way out”to allure the Gentiles and thereby make a name for himself. It was to this thatthey artributed his great success among those Gentiles, for circumcision wasone of the main obstacles to the spread of Judaism.30 Pauls decision to haveTimothy circumised proved the falsehood of that accusation and that is whythe author of Acts reported ir. Because Timothy was not a Gentile (his motherwas Jewish), this act in no way contradicted Pauls basic stand regarding circum-

cision. On the contrary, it effecuvely defiised his opponents’ argument by provingthat his interest was certainly not in making things “casier” for people. Hence,when Acts says he took this action “because of the Jews" (16:3), it does notmean “out o f fear of them,” but rather “for the sake of (convincing) them (of hisstand)."

S 5 *

This investigation into the background of Galatians has shown how importantthis controversial epistle is. It holds the key to an understanding of the issuediscussed at the Jerusalem council in particular and also to the course of earlychurch history in general, since the latter was shaped so fundamentally by theformer. In addition, knowledge of its thcological content is absolutely essentialto anyone who wishes to understand the Pauline “gospel," itself a major shap-ing factor for the early church and normative for most Christianity to the presentday. One would not be far off the mark to recommend this epistle as thestaning point for any serious study of church history and thcology, as well asNew Testament exegesis.

L


18/28

Introduction 15

Notes

* This Introduction was prcviously publishcd undcr the title “The Addressees and thc Purposc of Galatians” in St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, voi. 33» no 2 (1989) 159-179.

1 Brucc is thc most recent advocate of the former vicw (sec 3*18, 43*56), Bctz of the lattcr (sce 3-5).

2 So Bring, 5; Brucc, 209; Lightfoot, 174; Riddcrbos, 166 n.2.

} Riddcrbos (166 n.6) and Lightfoot (174) provide tclling examplcs of such a circularargument. Sce also Talbert, “Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem,” NT 9 (1967) 32; and Tyson, “Paul’s Opponents in Galatia," NT 10 (1968) 248.

4 See Betz, 48 ; Brucc, 80; Lightfoot, 75 ; Ridderbos, 46-7.

I So Schlier, 36.

* See Bctz, 52; Brucc, 83 ; Guthric, 63; Riddcrbos, 49; Schlicr, 39.

7 Note that both appear in thc parenetica! sections of epistlcs addressed to Gentilechurches Paul foundcd, both refer to the practices of the “Gentiles," and both arc introduccd with Ka(k 4? (as). See Betz, 284; Guthric, 138; Ridderbos, 206.

* Sce Bultmann, 241.

* Sce Bultmann, 178.

10 So RSV; C. K. Barrett, The EpistU to the Romans (London, 1957) 184; E. Kascmann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, 1980) 272.

II Oncc with ippeOij (was said) in 9:12.

11 Once the verb is KpâCei (cries/shouts; 9:27); ânoToXfl (dares {to say]) occurs in

conjunction with Xeyet (says) in 10:20.u The Corinthian situation is a parallel: things sccm to have flaircd up there whenever

thc apostlc was away.

14 That v.23 does include a traditional saying can be deduced from thc usc of “us"instead of “them” after “thc one who pcrsccutes" in a siatemcnt introduccd by o n (that).

11 EvayyeXiCofioi normally takes as direct object a divine message or its rcalization(such as word, gospel, Jcsus Christ, promise, pcace, etc.), and thc context shnws that nopdu) rcfcrs to what Paul was doing to Christ ia ns. l l i c n i g , on thc other hand, normally refers to a persons bclicf and trust in God. Each of thc mcanings attachcd to n i o r i s in v.23 is then itself an irregularity, and their simultaneous usc is even

morc so.14 The fact that y p (for) appcars at thc bcginning of w. 13-17 and does not occur again

in them indicatcs that they constitute a singlc passage functioning as an cxplanation for w.l 1-12. See fiinhcr Bctz (16*18,58fT.) as wcll as my commcnts on those verses.

17 In this regard I would likc to quotc thc interesting insight of K. Lakc in Foakcs, Jackson, and Lakc, The Acts o f the Apostles, (Grand Rapids, 1979) 5:238-9: "I have never felt quite so certain as both Mr. Emmct and Profcssor Windisch wcrc ... that Luke kncw nothing about thc Paulinc epistlcs. Admittcdly hc made littlc or no usc of them; but it would be an extraordinary thing that anyonc who so clcarly was cithcr a member of thc Pauline ci rele, or had acccss to its traditions, should have been ignorant of lettcrs which wcrc wcll known both in Rome and Antioch so soon after Acts


19/28

16 G a l a t ia n s

was wrictcn. It scems to mc not impossible that hc kncw the Epistles, and pcrhaps even thought that Christians were guning a wrong imprcssion of the work done by

Paul, who was so un&irly represented by letterc written coniroversiaJly and for specia] purposes. Is it an accident that he describes fcuds first dealings with the Romans, the Corinthians, the Ephcsians, and the Thessaionians?” I believe one should go beyond his reticence and acknowiedge that if Galatians was used by the author o f Acts, then the other epistles as well may have been so used (induding Philippians, which Lake omits from his list for some inexplicable reason).

The particular trip referred to in Gal 1:21, however, corresponds rather to the one mentioned in Acts 9:30 (larsus is in Cilicia).

” Ai fX ff eîv (to go through) in 9:38 is to be taken in the same sense as Sicpxoiievov (going througn) of v.32 since both refer to the same journey Stâ irdvTaii / (through all the places). In 10:38 the remark is about Jesus’ ministry. And in 13:6 SteABoin-eş

(having gone through) refers to a trip between Salamis and Paphos, both of which were drics w here the apostles did evangelize previousJy. The only exccption is 12:10. Acts 17:23 is not an exception because dm$€(op


20/28

Introduction 17

only through the usc of the ahaoJute TQ rr fcnr t (the făith) whkh it shares with 6:7. but also through (hc expression “incrcating in number* which ts similar to the phme

“thc number of duciplă was increasing" in 6:7.u Thcsc arc thc only instanoes of “midi" in Galatians.

” The remark “I went up according to a rcvciaiion” in Gal 2:2 does rxx create a diffi-

culty for this conclusion. It is an intcrjcction intended to emphasizc thc faa that Paul undcrtook thc journcy to Jerusalem as an apastic. as onc going fredy and as an cqual, and not as onc summoned by higher auuioritics in Jerusalem. On the contrary, Paul says, his authority comcs direcdy from God just as thein does.

* With Bctz, 85 ; Bonnard, 47*8; Lictzmann, 9ff. Mussner, 131-2; Conzdmann. 91 . 95; Hacnchcn, 462-8; Koestcr, 104;WiUon, 178-9. See also my commcnts on 1:16b- 17.

* This is probably thc principal rcason why they parted ways. The author of Acts trics to "smooth out thc rough edgcs’ in the life of the carly church. and here hc has used a Icss important rcason (thc penon of John Maric) to cxplain thc rift.

11 Note that both verbs f uayYeX i fcrai (hc evangelizes) and fernw (let him be) art inthc third person singular and so refer back to “angel-"

n Sec previous note.

* The other instance of KaĂto (to call) in reference to the Galatians is fbund în the immediately rclatcd 5:13.

*° Espccially for thc male Gentile, since circumcision was not only a very painful opera*tion when performed on adults, but also was stigmatized as shameful in thc Gentileworld (see 1 Cor 7:18a).


21/28

138 G a l a t ia n

VJ5 'ASeXQot. Karâ dvOpwnor Xiyco * ofiuţ; avOptinou

KeKipw&y i'&a(hjK7ji'oi/Sei? dQereî rj imSiaraaaeTai ,

Brtthren— and I am taking an example from human life/l

am speaking as a human being— even when it îs the will/testament o f a man that is validated/ratified, no one (else)may nullify it or add a codicil to it.

The scction conccrning God s promise to Abraham starts with an example taken

from common juridica! life. Tlie plain meaning o f this verse is that once a will

has been validated by its owner, ic may not be changed by anyone else in anv

way.

An incredibly complex debate among scholars conccrning the so-called “background*of the leea! practice referred to (i.e., whether it is Greek, Roman or Jewish) has beentriggcreaby the belief that Paul intended to say that not even the testaments authormay annul or change it. But this is not necessarily so, for Paul does see adiffemctln “authorship" between the promise to Abraham and the Law:

)) He twicc cxprcssly names God as the agent in the casc of the promise to Abraham(w.17 and 18), while he twicc avoids naming the author or origin of the Law (w.J7and 19).

2) In v.17 “the Law” is pcrsonified in order to bc presented as the “author" of theassumed invalidation of Gods covenant with Abraham. And the parallel between

w.15 and 17 is dearly intended by Paul himself, since: (a) the repetition of the verblevgw (I say) in v.17 obviously points back to v.15 where the apostles statement isintroduced with the same verb; (b) the statement itself in v.17 takcs up the samethought of v.15 through the repetition of “a ratified testament” (adding only"previously" to it); and (c) this parallelism extends even to the syntax of the twostatements so that "God” in v.17 is dearly opposcd to “a man" in v.15, whereas ‘theLaw” in v.17 oorrcsponds to “no one” in v.15.

V.J6 Tqj Si ’Afipaâ/i ippiOqaai / al inayyeXiai Kai rui

an i pnan avrov. ov Ă i yei , Kai ro i g anipfiaaiK i n i noXXwv, dĂÂ* w


22/28

.t

1) It is aiKxhff that thf >v*Wral figure in Pjw*^ argu/h^H; *> Graham

and thui that thc nu tn between bw» and b * vţf*£vSK,'nr* i- ̂ K 'thcr t i r ivythc nonTo» »fc seerttv vlfev»ifettt Wi/v WtJWhginto the text of Genesis »>oxrthing «bfcb sjk'&hitely not there. l*hey Wa fromonc extreme to thc other in their to sotoe this dilemma: some suggest

that “Christ* here is u> be unJetstood «tystically,46 others actually try w» >makcthc case that "oiVsprmg* o f the original Hebrew text was mcant to -ww 'to aspecific person.4’ Vet not vmlv are all of theso &vccd solutions, an)


23/28

140 G a u t u n j

text, Tcrtullian, Ambrosiaster, Augustine) have o icmv Xpiorâs (*that is: Christ*) instead. They too understood the last pan of the verse as nothing more than anexplanatory appendix.

It is also noteworthy that in his commentary on Galatians, John Chrysostom treatsw.16-18 as a unit:

But let us get to the bottom of this illustration. It was promised to Abraham thatby his seed the heathen should be blessed; and his seed aecording to the flesh is Christ. Four hundred and thirty years afterward came the Law, and if the Lawbestows the blcssings of life and righteousncss, that promise is annulled. And sowhile no one annuls a mans testament, the testament of God after four hundredand thirty years would have been annulled. For if it is not that testament butanother instead of it which bestows what is promised, then it has been set aside—which is most unrcasonable.

Obviously, he too understands the mention of Christ here as being sccondary tothe main argument of w.15-18.In fact, w. 17-18 not only ignore the phrase “which is Christ” but actually do

not mention the issue of the “offspring” at aii. This notion is taken up only inv.19 which inaugurates the following passage dealing with the Law and its func-tion (w. 19-25).

Why then the mention of “offspring” here in v.16? Because it is an integralpart of the issue of “promise.” I have established that the intimate relation between Abraham and Christians is based on the fact that the promise made tothe former— and to his offspring—was fulftlled in the blessing Christians re-

ceive by acknowledging that the promise has been realized in the offspring (seccomments on w.8-9). Put otherwise, the content o f God s testament to Abrahamwas enacted in the latters offspring. Thus, this offspring stands at the end of thehistory that began with Abraham and closes, as it were, the chapter entitled“God s promise.” It is precisely this point that stands at the beginning of thediscussion concerning the Law and its fiinction in w. 19-25. The Law, whoscexistence and fiinction the Old Testament dearly sets within the framcwork ofGods promise to Abraham (circumcision, through which the Law becomcsoperative, makcs one Abrahams son), “was given in addition until the offspringshould come to whom the promise had been made” (v.19).

In v.16 Paul could have said simply, “Now, it is to Abraham that the prom-ises were spoken, and to his offspring, which is Christ,” leaving out the remarkabout one offspring versus many. Such a formulation would have induded thetwo main points just dealt with; i.e., that the offspring is an integral part of thepromise made to Abraham and that it is in the Messiah Jesus that this promisewas realized.

What aii this means, then, is that Paul is “commenting” on the notion of Abrahams offspring. And his “comment” is nor that Christ is this offspring, butrather that this offspring, which is Christ— as even the opponents would readily


24/28

Chapter 3 141

concede—isone and not many. How then did Paul arrive ar this conclusion and

why is he interested in it?In order to make his point, the apostle if capitalizing on the fact that in

Genesis, Abrahams offspring is indeed onr. it runs through Isaac and notIshmael,4* through Jacob and not Esau. In other words, from the vantage pointof the promise, Ishmael and Esau are not Abrahams offspring. Paul will comeback to this point in Rom 9:6-8:

For not all who are from Israel, these are Israel; nor, because they are offspring (cnrepţia) of Abraham, are all children, but: “In Isaac will be reckoned to you an offspring (cnrepfsa). "That is to say, the chiidrcn of the flesh, these are not chil dren o f God\ but rather the children o f the promise are reckoned as offspring.

This, then, is what Paul meant by saying that the promises were not spokento many offsprings but rather to one offspring only.

The oneness of Abraham’s offspring is to central to the Old Testament mindthat it was carried forward to apply to the tribe of Judah, which came to beconsidered the one representative of this offspring, To take just one strikingexample: “He (i.e., God) rejected the tent of Joseph; hc did not choose thetribe of Ephraim; but he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loves”(Ps 78:67-68).49 Furthermore, in this tribe of Judah the oneness of the offspringis maintained especially in the person of David. Ps 78 cited above continues,

“He chose David his servant... to be the shepherd of Jacob his people, of Israelhis inheritance” (w.70-71). In Ezek 34:23-24 the Lord proclaims, “I will set upover them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them. He shallfeed them and be their shepherd. And I, the Lord, will be their God, and myservant David shall be prince among them.” This, by the way, explains why the

Jews o f the first century A.D. awaited a Messiah who would be the “son ofDavid” from the tribe o f Judah,50 one who would gather together and lead all o fthe tribes of the one people of God (see among other Old Tesrament textsespecially Jer 3:18; 30:8; 31:27; Ezek 11:14-20; Zech 10:6; see also Jn 11:52and Rev 7:4,9-20) .

But what is the importance of this for Pauls argumentation? In the detailedstudy of 1:13,1made it clear that Pauls Jewish Christian opponents conceivedof “two” gospels. One was to the Jews who were already Abrahams children, theother to the Gentiles who, even after believing in Christ, were not. Throughfaith in Jesus as the Messiah, the Gentile would find the door opened for him tobecome a child of Abraham through circumcision and thereby could partakefully in the blessing of the promise. In other words, the opponents conceived oftwo different communities “in Christ”: one of Jewish Christians, the other ofGentile Christians (see also comments on 2:12). It is to prove the fallacy of sucha stand that Paul appeals to the oneness of Abrahams offspring as well as to the

fact that Jesus, as the Messiah, is the offspring in whom the blessing of thepromise was realized. The strength of his argument is in the fact that both of


25/28


26/28

Chapter 3 143

through baptism, then baptism would bc functioning differentJy for a Gentile

than for a Jew. Paul argues that this is impossible since in baptism both Gentileand Jew share in the one cry of “Abba” (see comments on 4:6) of the one Son ofGod who is also theone offspring of Abraham (see v.29 and 4:7). And if throughbaptism the Gentile as well as the Jew shares in Jesus the Messiahs sonship toGod (see Rom 8:29); if the Gentile attains in baptism what the Jew, Abrahamsdescendant, looks for in the same baptism (otherwise why would a Jew be bap-tized?)— then what “more” could the Gentile be looking for in circumcision?Pauls main argument against his opponents was thus based also on a practice ofthe church which they themselves endorsed, namely, baptism.

Thcreforc, v.16 ultimately proves to be a central verse that functions simul-

taneously as an introduction to the three foliowing arguments: (a) w. 17-18dealing with the Laws inability to annul the promise; (b) w. 19-25 dealing withthe fiinction of the Law; and (c) 3:26-4:7 dealing with the meaning and func-tion of baptism.

v.17 t o v t o S i Ăiyio' SiaOrjtcqi / npoK€Kvpo)p.ii^)U m o t o v Oeov o fi€râ Terpatcooia Kai rpiătcoma ir q yeyovu)? voiios o v k ăKvpoi elg t o Karapyfjaai rr)u inayyeXiav.

But this is what I am saying/what I mean: the Law whichappeared/came into being four hundred and thirty years laterdoes not invalidate a testament/will previously ratified by

God, so as to nullify the promise.

Paul continues his discussion of the practicai applicacion of the general prin'ciple he enunciated in v.15. He is interested specifically in Gods “will/testa-ment,” and his main point is that the Law appearcd long after it—four hundredand thirty years, to be exact (see Ex 12:40 and Gen 15:13).To stress the lengthof the elapsed time between the rwo he even adds the prefix npo (before/previ-

ously) to the technical term K€Kvp(tHL4vT\v (validated /ratified) he used in v. 15.He condudes that since the Law is dearly too late to be part of the originaltestament, it cannot and does not “invalidate” that testament.

What about StadqKrjî Should it be understood In (he Old Testament sense of “covenant" or does it mean in this context simply “testament/wiir?'1 1 prefer the latter option. Whcncvcr Paul refers to a specific covenant.u he intends either the Mosaic one (2 Cor 3:13-14) ordaincd at Sinai (Gal 4:24-25) or the new one (2 Cor 3:6) of the Jerusalem above (Gal 4:24, 26). As for the Abrahamic covenant, he always calls it a “promise" (Gal 3:16, 18, 29; 4:23, 28; Rom 4:13, 16, 20; 9:8-9;15:8). Besides, the parallelism between w. 15 and 17 (sce commcnu on both) imposcs on us the same understanding ofSiaOqKT) which it has there, whcrc it piainly refers

to a human will or testament.


27/28

144

The express mention of God as thc author o f thc testament servts two fox*tions:

1) It darifies a contrast with v. 15 that makes thc general principie iiluscratcdthere even more applicable here: if no one else may alter even a maris will ortestament, much less can one alter Gods.

2) More importantly, it underscores the direct divine origin of the promise incomparison to the Law which has an indirect or mediated divine origin (seefurther w. 19-20). As Paul made clear in v.15» his line o f argument in this passage is looking at things from the standpoint o f human jurispmdence. Andfrom that vantage point, the two different condirions o f authorship virtually

amount to two different “authorships” although ultimately God Himself is thesource of both. Hence, the principie that no one else may modify a person's willor testament applies also in this case.

Finally, the apostle specifies that the testament he is talking about is Godspromise to Abraham, thereby setting the stage for the followingstatement dealing with that issue.

v.i8 ei yăp £ k voţiov rj K\r)povopia, ovk4 ti ££ enayyeXias' Tu Si ’APpaăfi Si * iirayyeXîas Kexdpicrrai o deos.

For if the inheritance is on the basis o f the Law, it is nolonger on thc basis of thc promise; but to Abraham it is

through a promise that God has freely given.

In the conclusion of this passage dealing with juridical issues (w.15-18). Paulintroduces the notion of KĂrfpovofiia (inheritance/heirship) which will takecenter stage in the passage about baptism (3:26-4:7). For him it is of vital im-portance that the Galatians are not simply Abrahams children but are also hisheirs (see 3:29 and 4:7). Why differentiate between child and heir? Because it ispossible to be one and not the other. Later Paul will refer to Abrahams two sons

Isaac and Ishmael (4:22) and will point oue that only the first was his heir(4:30). He will assert that the Galatians inherit the blessing promised to Abrahambecause they are his children specifically Maccording to/ after the manner orIsaac (4:28). This line of argument again confirms that the opponents werearguing that the Gentile could only inherit Abrahams promise of blessing throughcircumcision. To such a position Paul rcactt with a cut and dry either/on theinheritance is either on the basis of thc l .aw or on that of the promise. And «cannot be the former, for we know that it wa* actualiy given to Abraham througha promise.

One should immediately say here that thc text of Genesis corroborates this

assertion. Of seven instances where Abraham» inhcritance* is mentioned, the


28/28

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	andrei-m
View:	219 times
Download:	2 times

Galatians a Commentary - Paul Tarazi

Documents