 |
| English: Map of the Letters of Galatia (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
In
the first entry in the Bible Junkies Online Commentary on Galatians, I
discussed introductory matters concerning the founding of the churches to the
Galatians, the situation when Paul wrote to them, when the letter might have
been written and the type of letters which Paul wrote, based on the common
Greco-Roman letters of his day. In
the second post, I considered the basic content and breakdown of a Pauline
letter. I noted the major sections of the formal letter structure and, in the
context of each section, outlined the theological and ethical (as well as
other) concerns of Paul, including some Greek words which will be examined more
fully as we continue with the commentary. In
the third entry, I looked at the salutation, which is long for Paul’s
corpus (only Romans 1:1-7 is longer) and briefly commented on the lack of a
Thanksgiving, the only letter of Paul’s which does not have one. The
fourth entry discussed the opening of the body of the letter, a significant
part of the letter especially in light of the absence of a Thanksgiving.
4. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians
d) Body of the Letter (1:13-6:10):
i) Paul's Background in Judaism 1 (1:13-17):
13 You
have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently
persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. 14 I advanced
in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more
zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. 15 But when God, who had set
me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to
reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did
not confer with any human being, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those
who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and
afterwards I returned to Damascus. (NRSV)
In this section of
Galatians, Paul recalls his former manner of life as a persecutor of the
Church, who was called by revelation and grace to proclaim Jesus among the
Gentiles. This call was not dependent upon the previous Apostles, for the call
did not come from human authorities, not even Apostles, since Paul did not meet
them until years later (1:13-17).
Paul begins by
noting his “earlier life in Judaism” (τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ-
tên emên anastrophên pote en tô Ioudaismô), which need not indicate that Paul
no longer considers himself a Jew, but the manner or type of life which he
formerly lived, since the point of the reminiscence is to recall the fact that
he was “violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it”
(1:13). Evidence of Paul’s persecution of the followers of Jesus also comes
from 1 Corinthians 15:9, Philippians 3:6, and Acts 8:3; this is an undeniable part
of Paul’s earlier religious life, but why? Why did Paul seek to destroy the “Church
of God”?
Paul speaks of
having “advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I
was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors” (1:14). Richard Hays,
in the notes to the Harper Collins Study Bible, remarks that “advanced” (proekopton) was a “word commonly used by
Stoic philosophers to describe progress in cultivating virtue” (1974) and I
think that whether one sees specific Stoic influence here, which is possible,
it is important to see that Paul understands his previous persecution of the
Church in a religious light. He links his persecution with his being “zealous”
for the “traditions of my ancestors” (1:14).[1]
How could
persecution of other Jews be linked to progress in virtue? The word “zealous”
is key as is the phrase “traditions of my ancestors.” Both can be linked to
Paul’s life as a Pharisee. “Traditions of my ancestors” describes the oral
traditions regarding the Law of Moses and the “strict” (akribeia) interpretations of those laws practiced by the Pharisees
(see A. I. Baumgarten, “The Name of the Pharisees” in JBL 102 (1983) 413-17). As a result of these “strict”
interpretations of the law, many people were considered by the Pharisees not to
have properly followed or fulfilled the requirements of the law even though
these same people would have seen themselves as loyal Jews.
It can also be said,
as Paul himself does, that to be a “strict” interpreter of the law was to be “zealous”
for the law (see also Philippians 3:6). To be zealous for the law had a long
pedigree in Judaism prior to Paul. The key passage and incident is that of
Phinehas in Numbers 25:6-13, in which a Midianite woman and the Israelite who
brought her into his tent are slain by Phinehas due to his zeal for the law. There
are many other examples of “zealousness” from which to choose in the biblical
tradition (see James Dunn, Jesus,
Paul and the Gospels Eerdmans: 2011, 150-52), but that of Mattathias in
1 Maccabees 1-2 is most relevant. Not only does Mattathias call upon the memory
of Phinehas when slaying the representative of Antiochus Epiphanes and a Jew
who was to make an idolatrous sacrifice (1 Maccabees 2:23-26), but to be “zealous”
for the law is the condition of opposing the persecutions of Antiochus
Epiphanes for those who would join Mattathias (1 Maccabees 2:27) and a
characteristic of those Israelite heroes who had defended the faith before
Mattathias (1 Maccabees 2:51-60).
Some scholars have
even located the origins of the Pharisees in the Maccabean revolt, tracing the Pharisees
to the “Hasideans” (Hasidim) or “pious ones,” who join with Mattathias and his
sons to oppose the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. They are called “mighty
warriors of Israel, all who offered themselves willingly for the law” (1
Maccabees 2:42). Whether this is the precise group from whom the Pharisees grew,
and there is little evidence for this,[2]
it is generally the belief that the Pharisees did emerge from the fulcrum
of ideas and responses to the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the
response of the Maccabeans in the Hellenistic period, if not earlier. The first
reference to the Pharisees places them in the reign of the Hasmonean John
Hyrcanus (134-104 B.C.E.) (Josephus,Ant13.10.5). Since the
Pharisees do emerge only after the Maccabean revolt, and with a strong OT
pedigree to support them, zealousness for the law becomes a watchword for their
love of the Torah and desire to protect it from persecution and ignorance, such
as that of the Antiochean persecution. Faithful Jews in the later Hellenistic
and Greco-Roman periods would support this position in a variety of ways, such
as the “Zealots,”
who oppose with force Roman rule, but they key was to protect the Torah and the
practice of Judaism.
Paul is a part of
this history and his persecution of the Church is an attempt to rid Judaism of
what he saw as a sadly misguided reformation or interpretation of Judaism. We
are unclear, though, on whether his persecution was a response to Jesus’ own
teachings on the Torah – if Paul even knew of them – or whether it is a
response to the practices or beliefs of Jesus’ followers and their
interpretation of the Law of Moses, or whether he disapproved of their claim
that Jesus was the Messiah.
Paul’s turn away
from persecution and to Jesus comes through the revelatory experience he
mentioned in Galatians 1:12 and further outlines in 1:15-16a, “when God, who
had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased
to reveal his Son to me.” Paul places himself here in the role of the prophet
whom God calls even before birth (Jeremiah 1:5; Isaiah 49:1-6) and in the
constant sense of grace which he has experienced through Christ. Paul now sees
Jesus and himself as part of God’s revelation to the Jews not in opposition to
it. Again, Paul notes that God was pleased “to reveal” (apokalypsai) “his Son” to him, which points to a complex spiritual
experience that turned Paul’s life around. Whatever one thinks of religious
experience as a category, or the content of mystical experiences, Paul’s “revelation”
turns him from persecution of the Church to the Church’s major proponent, from being
willing to harm others on account of their faith in Christ to being willing to
be harmed for the Gospel and his faith in Christ.
Something real
happened to Paul through his encounter with God’s son who was revealed “in me”
(en emoi). This is translated usually
as “to me,” as in the NRSV, which is grammatically possible and
probably even likely, but “through me” is also possible (on these grammatical
questions see Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J., New Jerome Biblical Commentary,
Galatians 47:16, 783). I like “through me,” which fits with the task Paul was
given in 1:16b, but Fitzmyer finds it “redundant” in light of that task. What we
can say, I think, is that every aspect of this preposition is in play here: God’s
son was revealed in, to and through Paul for the purposes of making the Gospel
known to the nations. Paul is the means by which Jesus is proclaimed.
Finally, Paul
stresses again that “I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to
Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once
into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus” (1:16b-17). This repeated emphasis
is to indicate that Paul’s Gospel is divine in origin, as has already been seen
earlier in Galatians 1 (see entry
four), and we will examine the implications of this declaration for his
relationship to the Gospel he preaches and his relationship with the Church and
the Apostles in particular in the next two entries. As to Paul’s journey to
Arabia, this has generally been considered to be the Nabatean kingdom of Aretas
IV Philopatris, which was south of Damascus and east of the Jordan River (see 2
Corinthians 11:32), though this is not certain. What it does indicate is that Paul
did not consult with the Apostles, but retreated to commune with God or with
other Christians unknown to us.
Next entry, Paul travels to Jerusalem to meet the Apostles.
John W. Martens
I
invite you to follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies
I
encourage you to “Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.
This entry is cross-posted at
America Magazine The Good Word
[1]
“Ancestors” here is a translation of patrikôn,
which is more literally, and probably in a 1st century context more
accurately, “fathers.”
[2]
See Shaye, J.D. Cohen, From
the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Westminster John Know Press: 2006) 154-55
who sees “little evidence” for this connection. For a fascinating survey by the
same author on the purported connections between the Pharisees and the later
Rabbis and the Rabbinic desire for later Judaism not to represent the sectarian
nature of the Pharisees see “The
Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism”
now in The Significance of Yavneh and Other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (Mohr Siebeck: 2010)
0 comments:
Post a Comment