Galatians

Click here for the previous book, Corinthians II.

CHAPTER 1

Paul is a man with a chip on his shoulder in this letter.  We saw some of this in Second Corinthians but this is much more Paul: The Angry Apostle.  He needs to defend himself, and he’s not happy about that.

The letter begins: “Paul, an apostle, not from human beings nor through a human being but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead.”  Paul is so quick to establish his credentials that he doesn’t even say, “Here are my credentials.”  He just slams the damn things on the desk and glares.

Oh, he comes back around to the need to justify himself but quick.  “I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you but the grace of Christ for a different gospel.”  Things aren’t going well, clearly, in Paul-land.  And a different gospel, you say?  Yes: “there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.”  We saw some of this in Second Corinthians – someone is laying down a version of Christianity that is different from what Paul things.  And he makes it no secret what he thinks of his disturbed version: “if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed.”  Man, fuck them other guys, fuck ‘em completely.

So what is this other gospel Paul despises?  He never says.  Why would he want to promote something he opposes?  Besides, the Galatians have already heard it – which is the problem.

Paul makes a big case for his credibility.  No pussyfooting around, ambling back-and-forth like in Second Corinthians.  No, he flatly says, “The gospel preached by me is not of human origins. For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” 

Paul tells us where this gospel of his came from.  At first, it’s the story we know.  He persecuted the Christians, and then had his revelation.  He doesn’t quite say it happened on the road to Damascus, but it looks like it happened on the road there or in Damascus. 

OK, but then the story changes.  So far, everything Paul says lines up pretty well with what Acts of the Apostles said.  But in Acts, we’re told that Paul went directly from Damascus to Jerusalem, where he stayed with the Apostles for a while and was always in their company.  But that’s not the story Paul himself gives.  No, Paul flatly says, “I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus.” 

Interesting.  Paul goes out of his way to specifically tell us that he did NOT deal with the apostles.  This goes back to a point made earlier – his gospel came solely through divine revelation, not through any human intermediaries.  Why would Acts say something different?  Well, there is one obvious reason I can think of.  If you have Paul hang with the apostles, that makes it more clear that they’re all saying the same thing, and they’re all on the same page.  But if what Paul says is true, then there is a better chance that they’re on different pages.  (Besides, if Paul had spent plenty of time learning from the feet of St. Peter, you’d think he’d have a better knowledge of what Christ actually said.  As is, Paul virtually never discusses the teachings of Christ.  Last Supper, crucifixion, resurrection – that’s why Christ matters to Paul. Everything that happened before the last three chapters of the gospels?  Irrelevent).

Also, that brings up a big question – who are these people coming to the Galatians spreading this false doctrine?   And why would the Galatians so readily accept this new approach over the man who first baptized them in the name of the Holy Spirit?  One possible answer Biblical scholars have provided: it’s the Jerusalem Gang. One consistency throughout the New Testament is that Paul and them don’t always see eye-to-eye.  James Christ wanted people to uphold most Jewish laws (except that Gentile believers in Jesus don’t have to be circumcised).  Paul thinks that is bunk. 

Paul’s version has won out over the last 2,000 years, but can you imagine the reaction it would have if around the year 50 AD, a few actual apostles who knew Christ came to town and said “You’re doing it wrong!  Oh, Paul says that’s the way to be?  Well, Paul never met Jesus.  Paul had a vision, and if his vision doesn’t mesh up with what Jesus said when he actually walked around, who will you side with – Jesus or Paul?”  That would explain Paul’s tone here.  That would explain why he feels the need to justify himself so vehemently.  Maybe that explains why he goes out of his way to tell us he didn’t consult with the Jerusalem Gang after his revelation. 

Why wouldn’t he be so vehement with the Corinthians later on?  Well, maybe it wasn’t one of Christ’s actual apostles that came north.  Maybe it was a messenger or someone who knew of the disputes between Paul and Jerusalem to the South.  Maybe.  Or maybe the anger by the community to Paul here was more than in Corinth. 

Oh, Paul says more in this chapter, too.  Paul tells us that he spent three years between his vision and when he finally went to Jerusalem.  So there was contact.  Aye, but Paul was only there for 15 days.  In that time, he only saw Cephas (Paul’s name for Peter) and “James, the brother of the Lord.”

OK, let’s stop here for a second.  This clears up one thing.  In Acts, the big leader of the Jerusalem Gang was James – but it was just James, no other form of identity given.  That’s annoying because the gospels mention three James – Apostle James (brother of fellow Apostle John), James of Alphaeus (also an apostle), and James brother of Jesus.  Which one was the big leader?  Well, it couldn’t have been John’s brother because he died in Chapter 12. Sure, James of A was a minor apostle, but James Christ didn’t get much attention there either.  But this letter from Paul solves the riddle – it was James, brother of Jesus.  That’s who he met with.

Anyhow, Paul tells us that’s all the contact he ever had with the Jerusalem gang – “before God, I am not lying” he adds for good measure.  His back is up against the wall here, people. The meeting went well.  The Jerusalem Gang was apparently tickled to find their former oppressor was now on their side.  They let him go off preaching to Gentiles.

All this – and I almost forgot another point Paul makes.  Paul claims that not only was he spoken to directly by God, not only was his gospel given to him via divine revelation – but this was something God had determined well in advance.  Paul writes how “God, who from my mother’s womb had set me apart.”  Yes, that’s right – Paul was chosen as an apostle even before he was born.  That means he was picked as an apostle before the actual apostles.  Instead of being the Johnny-come-lately apostle who never met Jesus, Paul is the original apostle, certified by God himself.  (Also, this furthers a comparison I made earlier – that Paul is like Jeremiah.  In the Old Testament, we’re told that Jeremiah had been picked by God even before his birth to be a prophet). 

CHAPTER 2

Paul tells us more of his story.  He preached the gospel for 14 years before returning to Jerusalem. (Hmmm..  in Second Corinthians he has a cryptic section about someone Paul knew and there was a “14 years” thing there as well.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  I can’t figure our Chapter 12 of Second Corinthians).

Paul then gives his account of what my footnotes (and Biblical scholars) tell me is the big Chapter 15 showdown).  Paul tells us he didn’t back down, and didn’t submit.  The powers that be in the Jerusalem Gang made Paul’s’ Greek assistant Titus get circumcised, though, but it doesn’t sound like Paul liked that.  Anyhow, Paul refers to “those who were reputed to be important” so it sounds like he doesn’t get along with them that well.  Then again, Paul tells us “James and Cephas [AKA Peter] and John, who were reputed to be the pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”  So the meeting does end well, and with the apparent agreement that Paul will be apostle to the Gentiles.  So this pretty well lines up with Chapter 15 of Acts of the Apostles.

Then something interesting happens.  Paul refers to an incident involvement Cephas/Peter.  Paul doesn’t quite tell us what happens – he assumes the Galatians already know of it, so he can just refer to it here.  After all, it’s apparently an incident that happened right in front of them.

Anyhow, Paul thinks Peter was in the wrong – and Paul let Peter know it.  He apparently chastised the apostle in front of the Galatians.  It looks like Peter was eating with the Jews and Gentiles all together, and then some more guys from Jerusalem came up.  The other Jerusalemers weren’t down with much Gentile-Jew mixing (even in a Christian Church) and so Peter retreated, eating just with the Jews (and, I assume, in keeping with kosher regulations – something Paul clearly has no use for but James Christ does support).  Paul considers this to be hypocrisy and notes “even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.”

That’s basically the end of the story, but it opens up all sorts of questions.  What would Peter say about this, if he was around to give us his half?  Would Peter admit he was in the wrong, or would disagree?  Remember – Peter is closer to James Christ (even Paul tells us that one chapter ago, referring to them as two of the three church pillars, alongside apostle John). 

Also, is there any relationship between this scene and the problems Paul now has with the Galatians.  Think for a second: Paul upbraids Peter in front of the people for following Mosaic Law, and now (however long later) some people have come to the Galatians spreading a false gospel, and putting John on the defensive.  I don’t know which side Peter took in the kafuffle, but it looks pretty clear news of the incident came back to Jerusalem, and they’re clamping down on Paul’s unorthodox theology.  That would explain why Paul felt the need to mention the Peter incident, and all the more reason why he felt it was necessary to make clear how his theology was a product of divine revelation, NOT the Jerusalem Gang.  (For if the J. G. played any role in mentoring him, then all their words now contradicting his theology would mean they’re right and he’s wrong, for they are the mentors and he the pupil). 

Finally, it’s interesting that Paul says how even Barnabas is going with them.  Folks, let’s go back to Acts of the Apostles for a second.  There, Barnabas and Paul were a team for a while.  In the big Chapter 15 meeting, they’re given the right to go off together with the Gentiles. However – at the end of Chapter 15, they have a disagreement.  It’s such a sharp one, that they break up that old gang of theirs.

In Act, the disagreement was on John Mark (AKA, the reputed author of the second gospel). Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them and Paul said no.  Well, what else do we know about John Mark?  He was from the Jerusalem crowd, and reputedly Peter’s secretary/flunky. 

Let’s put this together.  In Acts, the breakup occurs after the big Chapter 15 meeting, and here in Galatians, the Peter incident comes right after Paul’s version of the Chapter 15 meeting.  Now we know that Barnabas disagreed with Paul on the question of eating, siding with the Jerusalem crowd – and apparently even wanted to take one member of the Jerusalem Gang with them on their further moves.  (And not just any Jerusalem Gang guy  - but the assistant to the man Paul just publicly upbraided).

Sounds like they had a definite falling out, and a falling out over the question of whether/not to apply the old Mosaic laws in Jew/Gentile eating customs.  It sounds like Barnabas broke with Paul.  Paul went off alone because he had no other supporters – and now Jerusalem is taking his community away from him from behind.

Paul talks about how it’s all about faith, now laws.  And that’s the fundamental difference between him and James Christ’s Jerusalem Gang.  (Paul is the Protestant while James Christ is the Catholic – though Jewish Catholic in this case, while the actual Catholic Church loves them some Paul).

CHAPTER 3

Now that Paul has gone over the entire history of the matter, it’s time for some good old-fashioned personal abuse: “Oh you stupid Galatians” begins Chapter 3.  Later on, he asks, “Are you so stupid.”

Paul mixes his insults with theology.  OK, you guys are questioning me (the man who showed you the way to Christ?) – so be it.  I have a question for you: “Did you receive the Spirit from works of the law or from faith in what you heard.”  It’s a leading question if ever there was one. Of course they got it from faith – that’s what Paul has always preached.  Well, guess what – the Jerusalem Gang is talking a bunch of law stuff, not faith stuff.  

If you think about it, Paul’s entire approach is based on faith. Not just his theology – but how he got into this religion in the first place.  He had a divine revelation directly from God.  And he has faith – as certain as certain can be – that the revelation was God talking to him.  So that’s all that matters.  And he’ll fight tooth and nail for it – even if it means fighting tooth and nail against the Jerusalem Gang for the souls of the Galatians. 

As for the law, Paul tells us it, “was added for transgressions.”  People were shown the path by God, but blew it, so the laws were put in place to keep human conduct in line as best as it could.  But we’re past that now.  We have Jesus Christ now, and if we put our faith in him it nullifies the old law.

Paul puts it like this, “the law was our disciplinarian,” but now that we live in the post-Christ age (AD, not BC), “not that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian.”  We’re past all that, thinks Paul. 

We’re beyond the law – among other things.  Paul states that in the post-Christ age, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female, for you alone are one in Christ Jesus.” No wonder Paul supported a female preacher in Romans (and no wonder his anti-female line in Corinthians was apparently a later addition by a scribe).

CHAPTER 4

Paul pleads for the Galatians to remain loyal to the gospel Paul gave them, the viewpoint that first brought them to Christ.  Paul does some reminiscing, and it’s a little obscure for us now.  Paul is referring to things that he and the Galatians know – but of course we don’t.  But it sounds like that when Paul first came in the region, he had some kind of disease – he says he had a physical illness.  What was it?  That’s not clear.  The best guess is an eye ailment of some sort, as Paul writes, “Indeed, I can testify to you that if it had been possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me.” Paul is trying to rekindle that passion he’s once stirred within the Galatians.

Paul thinks his opponents are looking to kill that level of passion, as: “They show interest in you, but no in a good way; they want to isolate you.”  Paul is playing on the heartstrings here.

Paul also lays down some theology, but it’s stuff he’s already said before in other letters.

CHAPTER 5

Paul makes a full-throated justification for faith over works here.  It’s probably his most starkly laid out case for that point of view so far.  Paul says that if you are circumcised, you will get no benefit from it.  In fact, it’ll hurt you because if you get snipped, then you’re obligated to observe all the old laws.  (Paul never explains why that would be the case – it just is the case).  And that’s bad, for Christ came to earth to free us from the law, so to begin following the law, “You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law, you have fallen from grade.”

Yep, that’s as stark as it gets – its faith versus the law: you must pick a side. 

That’s different from the message Paul has had in other letters.  In Romans he said circumcision isn’t a bad thing, but it misses the point, for instance.  But Paul needs to take a harder stand here because his personal credibility is at stake.  If he hedges at all, he fears he’ll lose the entire community.  I suppose that’s his point of view, anyway.  The basic fear is that people will focus on being saved through following the law, and that’s not what Paul wants. Along these lines, Paul says a little later on, “But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” 

For Paul, the Mosaic Law came about because people couldn’t follow God’s ways.  Now God has saw fit to redeem us by giving his son as a sacrifice, so the law is now nullified. 

It should be pointed out that this isn’t really the view of Jesus Christ you get in the gospels.  Christ, to be fair, doesn’t follow the laws the same way the Pharisees do.  Christ isn’t a stickler for the details the way the Pharisees were.  Christ did prioritize faith and love, just as Paul did.  But Christ was never so antagonistic to the law as Paul is.  At times Christ would say he just wanted to go further than the laws.  (It’s not enough to not commit adultery, you must also not sin in the heart). 

CHAPTER 6

Paul wraps things up.  He spends a few lines making some standard point and then makes his conclusion.  Most notably, in the conclusion Paul himself is doing the writing.  The end part begins with Paul writing, “See with what large letters I am writing to you in my own hand!”  Most of these letters were written by a scribe, jotting down Paul’s thoughts, but here – in order to help emphasize the personal nature of the letter and Paul’s appeal – he takes the pen himself.  (And why such large letters – did he have eyesight problems?  Who knows?)

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Wow! This letter was something of a tour de force by Paul.  He has had deeper letter and more elaborate discussions of his theology, but rarely has he ever come off with such primal emotional force.  (And mind you, he’s often passionate throughout these letters).  It’s also fascinating if you’re interesting in Biblical scholarship and the relationship between Paul and the other leaders of the primordial Christian church.  It doesn’t look like they always got along so well.

Click here for the Book of Ephesians.