 |
| 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. In
the fifth entry, I examined the beginning of the opening of the body of the
letter, in which Paul describes his background in Judaism and I placed this in
the context of Judaism in the Hellenistic period. In the
sixth post in the online commentary, I continued to look at Paul’s
biographical sketch of his life, this concerning his earliest life as a
Christian. In the seventh post, I examine what Paul says about his subsequent
visit to Jerusalem to see the apostles and the Church in Jerusalem.
4. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians
d) Body of the Letter (1:13-6:10):
ii) Paul's Background in the Church 2 (2:1-10):
Then
after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus
along with me. 2 I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before
them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the
gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not
running, or had not run, in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was
not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 But because of
false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we
have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— 5 we did not submit
to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain
with you. 6 And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders
(what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no
partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me. 7 On the contrary,
when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised,
just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised 8 (for
he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also
worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and
Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had
been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship,
agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They
asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager
to do. (NRSV)
Paul recalls his second
visit with the Apostles in Jerusalem “after fourteen years.” At least, that is
the generally accepted translation of this phrase, which begins with epeita dia dekatessarôn. Epeita means “then”
or “after” or more formally “thereupon.” Dia
means “through” more often than “after” and dekatesserôn is “fourteen.”I still think the best reading of this
phrase is “after fourteen years.” That leads to another question, though, and
that is fourteen years after what? Paul’s last visit? Or his conversion?
I believe that Paul
intends to say that this was fourteen years after the first visit, which
occurred three years after his conversion. Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. believes the
fourteen years implies fourteen years after his conversion. Fitzmyer also
places the conversion in the year 36 AD (NJBC,
783). I place this visit around 17 years after Paul’s conversion. It is
difficult to date Paul’s conversion with precision, but I believe that Paul’s apokalypsis or “revelation” takes place
not long after the crucifixion and resurrection, so I would place Paul’s
conversion, therefore, around 32 or 33 AD, much earlier than Fitmyer and many
others. What is interesting is that both sorts of dating wind up placing Paul
in Jerusalem around 50 AD.
This is important
because although there are many details not in common and many issues to
resolve it seems most likely that this second visit to Jerusalem that Paul
describes in Galatians 2 must be the same visit described in Acts 15 which is
now called the Apostolic Council. This council has generally been dated to
around 50 AD. Certainly Barnabas (2:1) is at the council with Paul (Acts 15:2,
12, 22), although Titus (2:1, 3) is not mentioned in Acts 15. Titus, however,
being Greek and uncircumcised, might not have had a major role or any role among
the apostles in Jerusalem, especially since the decisions being made had to do
with the role and place of Gentile Christians who did not follow the Law of
Moses in the Church. The claim being discussed in Acts 15 is that “unless you
are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts
15:1). It was precisely Christians like Titus who were the topic of
conversation among the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, but whether they were
welcome to participate in the conversation is another matter. We will return to
the issue of Titus shortly.
Paul also says that
he returned to Jerusalem “in response to a revelation” (2:2). I suspect that
this refers to Paul’s own revelatory experience, which he has already noted in
Galatians 1:12 and 1:16 (see entry
4 and entry
5). Acts 15:2 says that “Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were
appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and
the elders,” which suggests a formal decision making process not a revelation,
although it is possible that one could locate the origin of a decision in a
private revelation which was then secured by a formal decision of the
(Antiochene) Church. Galatians 2 and Acts 15 on this score are not identical,
yet they need not be seen as antithetical. It is also possible, of course, that
Paul simply remembers events differently than Acts or that he has another interpretation
of events.
Galatians 2:2
continues with Paul saying that “I laid before them (though only in a private
meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the
Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in
vain.” Such a meeting might not seem to align perfectly with the meeting
described in Acts 15, which seems broader than a “private meeting,” though Paul
might be “shaping” it for the Galatians to stress that he did indeed meet with
the “acknowledged leaders” of the Church and gained a favorable decision from
them. It is also fair to say that the Apostolic Council would not be described
as an “open” meeting. Some see in this verse a disparagement of the apostles,
but for all of Paul’s bluster this verse indicates that Paul knows he is
dependent upon the decision of the Church to make certain “that I was not
running, or had not run, in vain.” It is a startling admission of the Church’s
authority, since Paul is certain that through revelation he knows the truth of
the Gospel, which is intended for all men and women apart from the Law of
Moses.
This makes the case
of Titus even more intriguing. For Galatians 2:3 says, “But even Titus, who was
with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.” One could
see this as stating that Titus was not circumcised, or, conversely, that though
he was not compelled to be circumcised, he made the decision to do so freely.
Given the verses that follow, though, and the outcome of the Apostolic Council
in Acts 15, it is most likely that Paul’s point is that Titus was not circumcised.
Paul continues to say that “because of false believers secretly brought in, who
slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might
enslave us—we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of
the gospel might always remain with you” (Galatians 2:4-5). If they, Paul,
Barnabas, Titus and others “did not submit to them even for a moment,” it is
difficult to believe that Titus would have been circumcised.
Who were these “false
brothers”? Acts 1:5 identifies some Christian Pharisees who argued in the
Apostolic Council that “It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered
to keep the Law of Moses.” This aligns with those whom Paul describes as “false
brothers” given Paul’s focus throughout Galatians on freedom in Christ, and
from the Law, and within this passage his claim that the false brothers came “to
spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us”
(Gal.2:4). Note for instance the image of slavery associated with the Law of
Moses utilized by Paul in Galatians 4:21-5:1.
It is actually in
Galatians 2:6 that Paul seems to diminish the authority of the apostles, not
2:2, as his language seems sarcastic as he speaks of “those who were supposed
to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me;
God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me.”[1]
Paul’s rhetoric here is intended to stress more the sufficiency of the
Gospel he received rather than to reduce the authority of the apostles, since
it is Paul under attack in Galatia not the Jerusalem apostles, but the effect
might seem indeed to minimize the place of the apostles. If that is the impact,
Paul might still be satisfied since for him the issue is that the Gospel they
both preach is identical. That is his main point and the reason why the Galatians
should accept him and the Gospel he preaches.
Paul continues by
saying that the council acknowledged that Paul “had been entrusted with the
gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel
for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to
the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles)”
(Galatians 2:7-8). This sharp division does not seem to have adhered in actual
missionary practice since Peter is the one who went to the Gentile Cornelius in
Acts 10-11 and Paul seems often to have gone to the synagogues in a city first
and only then to Gentiles. It might be that this was considered the general
breakdown of missionary activity, though not limiting either man to only a
particular group. It must be said, though, that Paul continues this division of
the missionary activity in 2:9, stating that when “James and Cephas and John,
who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me,
they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we
should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised” (Galatians 2:9). Again,
it is possible that this was the breakdown of the priority of activity, with Paul
concentrating on Gentiles in the diaspora and Peter, and others, focusing on
the Jews, in Judea and beyond.
Paul ends this section
by saying that the Church “asked only one thing, that we remember the poor,
which was actually what I was eager to do” (Galatians 2:10). In fact, the
collection for the poor in Jerusalem becomes a keystone of Paul’s ministry as
we see in Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians. It does not precisely agree with Acts
15, however, in which James and the Church ask that Gentile Christians should “abstain
only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has
been strangled and from blood” (Acts 15:20; see also Acts 15:29). Why does Paul
omit these requirements when he writes to the Galatians? Does he not know of
them? Does he believe that Gentile Christians should indeed know enough to stay
away from such behaviors without mentioning them, especially Gentiles who want
to follow the Law of Moses? Does he feel that any list is too close to focusing
on law? The basic breakdown here is between idolatrous activities and sexual activities
(porneia), and Paul will be
unrelenting regarding one sort of behavior (porneia,
see 1 Corinthians 5-7) and more willing to compromise regarding another set
(meat offered to idols, see 1 Corinthians 8-10). Does he not agree with the
regulations concerning idolatry? Or, as some have offered, does the lack of
mention of these regulations mean that Paul is not describing in Galatians 2
the same meeting that took place in Acts 15? I believe Paul is in fact
describing the Acts 15 Apostolic Council, with all of the questions this
nevertheless raises, but decides not to mention these requirements either
because he does not think them significant in this context or he is worried
about aligning these pronouncements too closely with the Law of Moses.
Next entry, Paul and Peter have a disagreement.
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]
This is interesting language since in Acts 15:7-11 it does seem that the
Apostolic Council was moved by Peter’s words not Paul’s to accept Gentile
Christians as full Christians even without circumcision or doing every aspect
of the law. This seems to have contributed to Paul’s case, if not the Gospel he
preaches.
0 comments:
Post a Comment