had authority over him, as is apparent from the council in Jerusalem (see. Acts 15). ... ish literature of the Second Temple period proves beyond doubt that Com-.
Mekong Mission Forum Publications, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Hong Kong, 2012
Conflict and crisis in Galatia Does “the truth of the Gospel” need contextualization? By Dieter Mitternacht
Contextualization defines the process of indigenization or inculturation of a message or action into the realities of another context. It can be understood as the conscious attempt of a sender to make communication relevant or applicable for a particular receiver. This may involve the reformulation of scientific knowledge for pedagogical contexts such as textbooks. It may also involve the transformation of meaning from one culture to another in order to allow recipients to infer contextually adequate meanings. At the same time, contextuality is a fact of human life and perception, in that all understanding is related to and determined by contexts. Thus, contextualization can be a conscious activity, but it also can be recognized as a hermeneutical principle that accompanies all communication. I want to share with you a reading of the letter to the Galatians that exemplifies how Paul’s missionary activities in the Mediterranean basin articulate concerns of contextualization. The geographical distance was short and the Roman Empire seemed to provide a shared context. Nevertheless, Paul’s response to the reception of his truth of the gospel (2:5, 14) among the Galatian Christ-believers, indicates a case of conflicting contextualizations that result in a crisis between Paul and the Galatian believers. As a modern interpreter of the Bible with a historical agenda, my first task is to come to terms with the context of my own interpretation, my presuppositions and pre-understandings. I read a familiar biblical text that has a long history of interpretation, try to deconstruct, or re-read the text by making a conscious effort to apply a strictly historical approach. The attempt is never completely successful, yet I consider it to be a valid exegetical exercise to distinguish between two perspectives: What does the text mean? And: What did the text mean? This raises a number of other questions such as: does there have to be a correspondence between what the text meant to its first readers and what it can mean to me today? Or, is a
historical, descriptive meaning of a text normative for my understanding of the canonical text, or can I instead ask for the guidance of the Spirit in my own context, without concern for its meaning to the first recipients? The aspect of contextualization that I want to pursue in this paper concerns how texts themselves exemplify the struggle to communicate and be understood. This is especially relevant in a text genre such as “the letter”, since letters, as it has often been said, contain one side of a discourse. As the letter writer responds, he or she presupposes an understanding of the concerns of the addressee(s) and may include that understanding in an affirmation or rebuttal statement. Conversely, from the other end of the communication process, i.e. the addressees’, they also are involved in a process of contextualizing, both as they make their points of views known to the sender, as well as when they receive the letter response. One such instant were these two aspects of a contextualization process surface, can be identified in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, both with regard to the dynamics revealed in the text, and in the history of the interpretation of the letter. Let me exemplify by considering the question of “the truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:5, 14)? Apparently, at the time of the writing of the letter to the Galatians, there were different claims to that truth among those who wanted to serve Christ with all their hearts. Some of these claims were held by those who had been friends of Jesus, leaders of the early church, such as Peter, John and James. They had walked with Jesus, shared his “context” and, contrary to Paul, had heard Jesus’ teaching with their own ears. They had watched his deeds with their own eyes. How could Paul be so adamant in his claim to knowing the truth of the gospel, and at the same time claim all these others to be so wrong? After all, Paul was rebuking and condemning those who had been chosen by Christ himself to be the shepherds of the flock. They were respected in the church throughout. But still, Paul publically confronted and humiliated Peter, and even Barnabas, his senior colleague in Antioch. He felt compelled to oppose fellow believers who, in fact, had authority over him, as is apparent from the council in Jerusalem (see Acts 15). And now, with that same zeal, Paul directs his corrective appeal at the churches in Galatia. Since there is no reply letter or any other historical record, we will never know the response of the gentile Christ-believers in Galatia as they heard Paul’s letter being read to them. Foolish as they may have been (Gal. 3:1), it seems appropriate to make an attempt to deduce their own contextualiza-
2
tion of the gospel from the accusations made against them, not so much by simply following Paul’s rhetorical lead, but rather by following the lead of Walter Bauer who has challenged interpreters of scripture as they try to pinpoint early Christian heresy: “Must not the historian, like the judge, preside over parties and maintain as a primary principle the dictum audiatur et altera pars (let the other side be heard)?”1 Ultimately, hermeneutical horizons blend into each other, interdependently, and the idea of objective historical reconstructions comes close to being an illusion. Yet still, paying attention to the dynamics of the text, being less attentive to apparently undisputed interpretations, and asking question anew, seems both necessary and justified, as I hope to be able to demonstrate.
1 1.1
Defining the problem Traditional interpretation
Up to the 1970’s most interpreters of Paul’s letter to the Galatians basically agreed that the main theme of the letter can be summarized as faith and works, or faith versus works, and that Paul was arguing with great fervor and against firm opposition that unconditional salvation was offered to all mankind, solely given by the mercy of God in Christ. The starting point of this line of reasoning was that troublemakers had come to Galatia and compelled the gentile Christ-believers to circumcise. The reason for this demand was that these people were advocating a legalistic piety that was indicative of the depraved nature of Late Second Temple Judaism. Not only that, but this particular historical situation exemplified the universal religious fallacy, according to which man is both able and obliged to accumulate merits for his or her salvation. For Paul, their demand for circumcision contradicted and blurred the eternal truth of the Gospel, which can be summarized as sola gratia, unconditional grace in Christ. Therefore Paul reassured his converts that “a person is justified not by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal 2:16). In this scheme of things, the letter to the Galatians was perceived as providing an answer not just to the particular historical situation in Galatia, but to 1 W. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit Und Ketzerei Im Ältesten Christentum, ed. G. Strecker, 2.
durchgesehene ed., vol. 10, Bhth (Tübingen: 1964 [1934]). xxi.
3
the universal quest of humankind: “How can I find peace with God?” Being universal, the plight naturally coincides with the plight of the reformers, especially Martin Luther’s. As Luther pondered the meaning of the righteousness of God, Paul’s answer to the Galatians appeared highly relevant for the legalistic sense of works-righteousness in the Late Middle age church. In short, the apostle’s plight for a law-free gospel coincided with Luther’s intense plight for a gracious God.
1.2
The new perspective on Paul
Step by step since the 1960s, the traditional interpretation has been called into question, even to the point that James D.G. Dunn, professor of NT at Durham in 1983 coined the term “the new perspective on Paul”, which then became a label for a major strand of Pauline scholarship, although, as soon became apparent, scholars developed not one but several new perspectives on Paul. 1.2.1
Second Temple Judaism was not a religion of legalistic worksrighteousness
The foremost assertion that unites the different new perspectives on Paul is the recognition that Second Temple Judaism was not a predominantly legalistic religion. In a study published in 1977, E.P. Sanders argued that the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period proves beyond doubt that Common Judaism at the time of Jesus and Paul was not legalistic. Instead, a pattern of covenantal nomism can be identified that is firmly grounded in the concept of unconditional election. There are a few texts that do promote meritorious works, but the great bulk of those writings do not. In fact, election by grace is so fundamental that the rabbis often presuppose it without discussion.2 Sanders’ proposal was to become most influential. It was immediately accepted by the British scholar N.T. Wright who declared that the real Judaism was based on a clear understanding of grace and that it was “not a religion of legalistic works-righteousness.”3
2 Sanders, E.P. 1977. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. London and Philadelphia: Fortress. E.g.
236, 422ff. 3 Wright, N.T. 1978. The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith. Tyndale Bulletin 29: 61-88.
79-80.
4
1.2.2
Circumcision as an ethno-religious identity marker
The reappraisal of Second temple Judaism was followed by a second major assertion, proposed by James Dunn. According to Dunn, the conflict in Galatia concerned the status of gentiles in the first Christian communities and certain “works of the Law” that functioned as ethno-religious identity markers for Jews.4 These works of the Law were circumcision, and purity and Sabbath regulations. Thus, when Paul opposed the works of the law, he did not stand up against works-righteousness but against national exclusivism. Consequently, Paul was not dealing with a universal problem of human religiosity, but with a specific historical concern. Against his opponents who argued that only Jews could be full members of the people of God, Paul asserted that all who believe in Christ are also children of Abraham. 1.2.3
Paul’s robust conscience
“No article published in the twentieth century on a New Testament topic garnered more attention, provoked more debate, or exercised greater influence than Krister Stendahl's ‘The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.’”5 This assertion by Stephen Westerholm illustrates the importance of Krister Stendahl for the emergence of the New Perspective on Paul. In this 1963 article, Stendahl suggested that 1) there is no evidence in the Pauline epistles that Paul’s conscience was particularly delicate or introspective. Rather, Paul’s conscience can be characterized as robust. 2) Augustine and the reformers looked to Paul for an answer to their plight for a gracious God. They found the liberating and saving answer in his words about justification in Christ by faith, and without the works of the law. But Paul was not concerned with their question. His main concern was “the place of the Gentiles in the Church and in the plan of God.”6 The second point had, in fact, been made already in 1935 by another famous Lutheran scholar, Adolph Schlatter, who argued in his Romans Commentary that the difference between Paul and the reformers is that they begin 4 Dunn, James D.G. 1983. The New Perspective on Paul. Bulletin of the John Ryland University
Library 65: 95-122. 5 Westerholm, Stephen. 2006. Justification by Faith is the Answer: What is the Question?
Concordia Theological Quarterly 70: 197-217. 197. 6 Stendahl, K. 1963. The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West. Harvard
Theological Review 56: 199-215.
5
their reflection with their own self, whereas Paul’s reflection starts with God. They begin with their own despair, whereas Paul begins with the sending of Christ. Therefore, Schlatter observes, when Luther and Calvin explain how communion between God and man is established, the righteousness of God almost completely recedes, and the mercy of God takes prime position.7 1.2.4
Conclusion
Put together, these arguments incited “new perspective(s) on Paul”. Many scholars began to reject the historical construct that Paul’s opponents would have propagated an individualistic meritorious works-righteousness. Instead, the problem of Second Temple Judaism was that it insisted on a “national righteousness.”8 Consequently, Paul’s concern was not with works versus faith, but with a particular set of works of law versus the inclusiveness of faith in Christ. The plight that underlies the major crisis among the first Christians concerned the question whether gentiles can become part of God’s people without first becoming Jews.
2
Identifying motives and purposes
The new perspective on Paul shares with the old perspective the view that the crisis in Galatia was caused by the addressees’ uncertainty of salvation, be it on account of a demand for meritorious works, or on account of ethno-religious exclusivism. In my own reflection on the letter to the Galatians, I was intrigued by this apparently undisputed assertion and decided to take a second look at the evidence by asking the following questions.9
7 „Der Ausleger [d.h. Luther und Calvin] ging von seinem Ich, Paulus von Gott aus; der
Vordersatz des Auslegers war seine eigene Not, der des Paulus war die Sendung des Christus... Wenn aber Luther und Calvin sagen, wie die Gemeinschaft Gottes mit den Menschen zustande komme, dann verblasst Gottes Gerechtigkeit fast ganz, und das 5 Erbarmen tritt an ihre Stelle.“ Schlatter, A. 1935 [ 1975]. Gottes Gerechtigkeit. Ein Kommentar zum Römerbrief. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag., 38. 8 Wright, N.T. 1978. The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith. Tyndale Bulletin 29: 61-88.
63. 9 I have since developed my analysis further in these and other publications: Mitternacht,
Dieter. 2002. Foolish Galatians. A Recipient-oriented Assessment of Paul's Letter. In The Galatians Debate. Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos: 408-33. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson., Mitternacht, Dieter. 2004. Paul's letter to the Galatians in Social-Psychological Perspective. In Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures. Volume three: From Gospel to Gnostics, ed. J. Harold Ellens and Wayne G. Rollins. Atlanta: Greenwood-Praeger., Mitternacht, Dieter. 2007. A structure of persuasion in Galatians: epistolary and rhetorical appeal to listeners. Edited by D.F. Tolmie. Exploring New Rhetorical Approaches to Galatians. Papers Presented at an International Conference at the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, March 13-14, 2006. Acta Theologica Supplemen-
6
1) What does the letter to the Galatians tell us about the addressees’ motives and purposes? 2) How does the fact that we have no first hand information about the addressees affect our understanding? 3) Since the one source that we do have at our disposal, the letter to the Galatians, is polemical, embellished with exaggeration and irony, even sarcasm, how does that affect our ability to draw inferences? No question, Paul describes the addressees’ deviance from the truth of the Gospel with great rhetorical force. When he asks them whether they want to go back to a state of “spiritual” slavery (4:10; 5:1), or when he informs them that they are in danger of falling out of grace (5:4), there is no doubt that, in Paul’s judgment, the Christ-believers in Galatia were in great danger. Ironically, the intensity with which Paul makes his point indicates that he did not expect the addressees to be aware of the spiritual dangers of which he informs them. The question then arises: Where they taken aback? Where they completely surprised by what they were told about their course of action? Most importantly, as interpreters we need to ask ourselves what clues we can gather from the letter as to the motives of the addressees?
2.1
A survey of passages
A survey of the few passages, where Paul explicitly refers to the actions taken by the addressees, shows that not once are their own motives or purposes articulated. In fact, as I looked at the evidence, it became increasingly difficult for me to accept the notion that Paul wanted to shake the Galatian addressees up in order to reassure them of their salvation in Christ, be it apart from works or apart from becoming Jewish. Let’s begin by looking at the passages where Paul speaks to the addresses directly: In Gal 4:21 we read: “Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?” This sentence affirms that the addressees had a desire to be under the law, and we recognize that Paul wants them to understand that they are at fault. But the passage does not disclose anything about their motives and purposes.
tum 9, Acta Theologica. Bloemfontein: University of the Free State., Mitternacht, Dieter. 2007. Wahrnehmungen und Bewältigungen einer Krisensituation. Ein Beitrag zur psychologischen Analyse des Galaterbriefs. In Erkennen und Erleben. Beiträge zur psychologischen Erforschung des frühen Christentums ed. Gerd Theissen and Petra v. Gemünden: 157-82. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus..
7
In Gal. 3:1-5 Paul informs them that the Spirit is given apart from works of the law and asks in v 3: “Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?” Of course the addressees do not wish to “end with the flesh”, whatever that may mean. But what is the flipside of this rhetorical question? How would the addressees themselves have explained their course of action? In Gal 4:9 Paul asks: “... how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?” and in 1:6 he asserts: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ — and turning to a different gospel....” It seems evident that Paul is making polemical overstatements that do not correspond to the addresses’ own perception of the situation. Of course the addressees did not want to be slaves to weak and beggarly spirits or desert Christ. Neither did they want to desert God. Asked for their own motives and expectations they would have said something else. This is clear already from the fact that Paul verifies that that they considered the alternative message to be “good news”, a gospel. Even though Paul rejects that gospel, he does convey the impression that the addressees perceived it to be a Gospel. But why was it a gospel to them? It seems also evident that Paul did not believe that they wanted to abandon Christ. Otherwise he would not, at other places in the letter, have called them “brethren” (3:15), “sons of God”, “baptized into Christ” and affirmed that they “have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26-27).
2.2 Hostility and fear among the believers We are left in the dark for most of the letter, but as we get to Gal 5:15, Paul provides a vital clue concerning the situation in the churches in Galatia: “But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another.” We certainly have to allow for some exaggeration even here, but it seems safe to assume that there was disharmony, even hostility, with potentially destructive effects among the Galatian believers. In Gal 4:21-29 Paul uses an allegorical interpretation of the relationship between the two sons of Abraham to make another point concerning the situation in Galatia. The details of the passage are intricate and difficult to understand. But at the end of the allegory, the purpose becomes clear as Paul applies the meaning of his allegorical interpretation to the situation in Galatia: “But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh
8
persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also” (4:29). In other words, hostility between brothers is identified as part of the problem in the churches in Galatia. This impression corresponds in principle to the background information in the beginning concerning the incident that happened in Antioch (2:11-14). There Paul relates how Peter and other Jewish Christ-believers had acted hypocritically and withdrawn from table fellowship with gentile Christbelievers. He does not say, however, that they did so because they were in fear of losing their salvation, but because they were in fear of other Jews in Antioch (2:12). The fear of brothers who could afflict socio-political harm unites the accounts.
2.3 Social hardship and persecution In addition to the two instances just referred to, the focus on social concern, hardship and persecution recurs in connection with the description of the so called “opponents”. These references are especially interesting, as Paul ascribes explicit motives to their actions: 1) They care for you because (hina) they themselves want to be cared about (4:17). 2) They compel you in order to (hina) avoid persecution (6:12). 3) They want you to circumcise so that they may (hina) “boast in your flesh”. There has been considerable debate concerning these verses and their implications. My main concern at this point is to note that the motives are not compliant with legalistic concerns. Paul even asserts that these people have no real interest in the law (6:13). Instead, the motives indicated by Paul have to do with social relations, persecution10 and outward appearance. Looking at the context of 4.17 from a social-psychological perspective, we have to ask ourselves as to how Paul’s aggravation over having himself lost the Galatians’ friendship (4:15ff) affected his negative perception of motives. Was Paul rivaling for the friendship of the addressees? And if so, what are the implications concerning his negative description of the others’ motives? Did the addressees see them as agitators or troublemakers as well, or rather as “advisors” or “counselors”? They had self-interest to be sure. But, was the 10 In an article from 1984, a former professor at LTS pointed out that persecution is a ne-
glected feature in Galatians (Baasland, Ernst. 1984. Persecution: A neglected Feature in the Letter to the Galatians. Studia Theologica 38: 135-150. 136-138.
9
negative depiction of their intentions colored by Paul’s sense of competition? At any rate, while Paul certainly is concerned for the spiritual welfare of the believers in Galatia, his polemical manner of argumentation may also indicate a conflict of interest.
2.4 The (in)significance of circumcision From what has been argued so far, we can infer first, that we do not have access to the addressees’ motives, second, that Paul’s presentation of the advisors may be prejudiced and has to be taken with caution, third, that the desire of the gentile addresses to be circumcised does not seem to be caused by uncertainty of salvation, and fourth, that legalistic concerns of the advisors can be ruled out. The crucial question that follows is, how does this affect our interpretation of what we know as a fact, namely that Paul fervently opposes the desire of non-Jews in Galatia to be circumcised? The interpretive task increases as we add the strange corollary that, despite of this fervent concern, Paul makes it clear twice that he considers circumcision to be of no significance as compared to steadfast faith and the new creation (5:6, 6:15). He also seems to take for granted that Jewish men, Christians or not, are obligated to keep the entire law on account of their circumcision, wherefore he “warns” the gentile Christ-believers in Galatia that if they circumcise, then even they will be their obligated to keep the whole law (5:3).11 To begin with, the inference seems apparent that circumcision as such cannot have been a concern for Paul, since he considered it natural for all Jewish men, Christian or not, to be circumcised. But what then was he opposing? What were, in his perception, the addressees’ motives, purposes and faults? And vice versa, why would gentile Christ-believers in Galatia, trying to capture their perspective, want to be circumcised and what is the advice that they had followed? These questions will be our concern for the remainder of this lecture.
11 This point was strongly made in Nanos, Mark D. 2000. The Inter-and Intra-Jewish Context
of Paul's letter to the Galatians. In Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation, ed. Richard A. Horsley: 146-159. Harrisburg: Trinity. 156.
10
3
A Calling to Imitate the Crucified Christ
3.1
Paul’s visit to Galatia
At two places in the letter Paul looks back to the circumstances of his visit to Galatia. Firstly, in Gal 4:12-15 he recalls the kindness and hospitality that the Galatians had shown him, despite his precarious situation and difficult condition (“and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me,” 4:14). In fact, they had received him “as Christ Jesus” and with overwhelming solidarity (4:15). It has been argued on the basis of Gal 4:13 and 4:15b that an eye disease from which Paul suffered had occasioned his visit to Galatia. But this should probably be ruled out and most commentators do not follow this lead anymore. Instead, the phrase “if possible, you would have plucked out your eyes” (4:15b) is most often seen as an idiomatic expression for the highest degree of loyalty. Instead of referring to a physical illness that made him stay in Galatia for a while, Paul recalls that both he and those who were loyal to him and his message came under heavy social pressure and affliction. Secondly, in Gal. 3:1 Paul speaks of his ministry in Galatia as a public manifestation of Jesus Christ as crucified. Here again eyes are mentioned as well as evil eye imagery (ebaskanen, 3:1) and also the suffering of the addressees (epathete, 3:4). This can hardly be a coincidence. There were a number of afflictions that occurred, but Paul did not waver to follow in the footsteps of the crucified Christ. Both these reminders support Paul’s plea at the very center of the letter: "Brethren, I beseech you, become as I [am], for I also [have become] as you [are]" (4:12). This brings us to the question of what Paul says about himself.
3.2 Persecuted for the cross of Christ In three egō-statements Paul explicates what it means to become like him. 1) In Gal 5:11 he refers to himself as being persecuted for the sake of the offense of the cross. 2) In 6:17 he informs the addressees that he bears on his body “the stigmata of Jesus.” 3) In 2:19b-20 he refers to himself as being “... crucified with Christ; ...and the life I now live in the flesh I live in faithfulness to the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
11
Moreover, Paul makes clear that he relates to Christ as a slave (1:10). Thus, his request “Become as I” seems to mean: become as I, that is, one who follows in the footsteps of Him who was crucified. Crucifixion was perhaps the most humiliating punishment a person could be sentenced to in antiquity. A person sentenced to be crucified was not considered a victim, but rather a dangerous criminal or agitator12 (see also 3:13). One might therefore consider a public portrayal of Jesus Christ as crucified to be a rather detrimental proselytizing strategy. Even so, that is how the Gospel was presented and received in Galatia (3:1).
3.3
Deliverance from the present age
In Gal.1:4 Christ is described as the one “who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age...” This is a very unusual assertion and it is quite possible that the verse stems from a pre-Pauline tradition.13 But the fact that Paul would use a tradition in this letter, where Christ's sacrificial death is not associated with forgiveness(!), but with deliverance from the present age indicates that his mind was set on emphasizing the dynamic (and not the forensic) aspects of crucifixion from the very beginning. Like Christ, who was swayed neither by suffering nor by a violent death, also Paul resists this evil age, and so should those who believed in Christ.
3.4 Redeemer and paradigm Accepting that Paul is advocating loyalty to the suffering, crucified Christ both as savior and role model, it seems natural to interpret the genitive construction pistis Christou subjectively, that is, not as faith in Christ, but as faith(fullness) of Christ. It is, in other words, Christ's faithfulness that is contrasted with works of the law, and it is “in (this) Christ we endeavor to be justified” that is, become partakers of God's gift and power (cf. 2:17). For Paul, then, Christ can never be just the object of receiving faith. He is the subject of faithfulness, a faithfulness in which even ”I live” (2:20). He is redeemer and paradigm, he is the life in which all else becomes reality. He 12 Hengel, Martin. 1977. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the
Cross Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers., 1977, 83. 13 Synofzik, E. 1977. Gerichts- und Vergeltungsaussagen bei Paulus. Eine
traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 17; Witherington, Ben. 1998. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans. 76f.
12
is the model for all who embrace his faithfulness. The addressees of the letter are therefore expected to realize that their social and political circumstances and their way of life should be modeled according to their identification with the crucified Christ.
3.5
Imitate the crucified Christ
With this reading of Galatians, we find a contrast between Paul’s purpose with the letter and the advisors’ motives and purposes a described in 6:13. Looking beyond the rhetorical overtones of the accusations, we may confirm that the advisors were trying to reduce suffering and hostility among brothers by inducing group identity (pro friendship) and social status (versus persecution). Paul however, saw the advice as a betrayal of the fundamental premise innate to the call to follow Christ. Therefore he pleaded with the addressees: “Brothers, I beseech you, become as I” (4:12). Thus, the gentile Christbelievers in Galatia are called to participate in a Paul-like discipleship that may be summarized with the words: imitatio Christi crucifixi. Paul's complaint is that they had known about this commitment from the very beginning, but have never embraced it fully.
4
We have peace with God; what we need is peace with our fellow man
4.1
The appeal of the synagogue
Many of the gentiles who turned to Christ had been “God-fearers,” i.e. friends of some sort of the synagogue. They had been attracted to Judaism and had participated in Jewish worship in the synagogue without as yet becoming full proselytes. That is where they also first had heard Paul preach. As god-fearers they had remained fully integrated in their pagan society with many functions that involved participation in pagan cultic activities. We recall the Roman centurion Cornelius, who was highly praised by Jewish Christians for his friendship with the synagogue in Caesarea. Yet as a Roman soldier he also was involved in Roman religious activities. Unlike Jews, god-fearers were not exempted from certain duties to society such as worship of pagan gods or military service.
13
4.2 The confession to Christ as Lord As these god-fearers began confessing Christ as Lord of their lives their relationship to pagan society changed. Following Paul’s preaching and their faith in the one God and his Christ, they had abandoned worship of their native deities (Gal 4:8-11). This had resulted in “serious disruption in [their] relationship with family, friends, fellow club members, business associates and civic authorities.”14 No more incense burning on house altars, no more business dinners, no more loyalty displays at cultic ceremonies that honor city and state. This may have been a minor problem in an urban context such as Corinth, where Christians could hide in the crowd, or were protected by a powerful patron such as Erastus. It may also have been easier to find ways to cope with daily and family needs, when a community of believers had reached a certain size and had begun to function as a self-contained community. But in rural contexts where people know each other and where the groups of believers were small, marginalization in society, estrangement from families and friends, even animosity from city and state officials, may have led to severe consequences.
4.3 How much must we endure? In light of this kind of adversity, squeezed, as it were, between a rock and a hard place, the gentile Christ-believers in Galatia may have wished to become Jews and share the societal privileges of Judaism. They were excluded not just from their former pagan community life but also from the religious, social and political structure which the synagogue could provide. They had learned from Paul that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. Yet Paul, being a Jew, could practice his Christ-faith while at the same time participating in Jewish meals, preaching in the synagogue and claiming to be a member of the synagogue community, without conflict between his faith in Christ and the worship of the God of Israel. He would indeed assert that he upholds the law (Rom 3:31), although his understanding of what that meant was controversial.
14 Barclay, John M. G. 1988. Obeying the Truth: Paul's Ethics in Galatians. Studies of the New
Testament and of It's World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark., 58; cf. Winter, Bruce W. 1994. Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens. Grand Rapids and Carlisle: Eerdmans and Pater Noster. 136.
14
The gentile Christ-believers may indeed have asked themselves: ‘Why should we not, just like Paul, be circumcised and thus qualify, in the eyes of civil the authorities at least a members of Judaism? We could then practice our faith in Christ the same way as Jewish Christians do. What is good enough for Paul should be good enough for us, at least in terms of social conversion!’15 We may want to consider an additional complication of the situation. It is not unlikely that there were proselytes to Judaism in Galatia who had come to believe in Christ through Paul. The only difference between these proselyte Christ-believers and uncircumcised Christ-believers of gentile origin was that the latter had proselytized and been circumcised before Paul came to Galatia. As Paul preached the Gospel in the synagogue, some proselytes and other gentiles who were friends of the synagogue community, heard him and believed.16 Now they all shared the same faith in Christ, yet the decisive difference being, that the proselyte Christ-believers had access to the societal privileges of Judaism, whereas the Gentile Christ-believers did not.
4.4 The offensiveness of the cross The picture has become quite intricate, but there is one more issue to be taken into account. According to Gal 5:11 it would appear that the Galatians had reason to believe that Paul had no objections to their course of action. Otherwise, why would Paul write: “And I, brothers -- if I were still preaching circumcision, why should I still be persecuted? For then the obstacle which is the cross would have no point anymore.” Paul seems to be in need of clarification regarding his policy and practices as an apostle. Why? Apparently, he had advocated circumcision of gentiles at some earlier point in his apostolic career (in order not to obstruct the advancement of the Gospel?), but had changed his course of action after he had moved on from Galatia. At some point he had decided that he would no longer try to circumvent persecution by circumcising gentiles Christ-believers. The Galatians in turn, not yet being aware of the change, remembered Paul as one who did, 15 Shaye Cohen’s investigation into the ways by which a gentile in antiquity could gradually
become less of a gentile and more of a Jew has lead him to identify seven categories (Cohen, Shaye J. D. 1999. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. 140-174). On the distinction between theological and social conversion, see especially ibid. 168-174. 16 The pattern established in the book of Acts (cf. 13:43; 14:1; 17:12, 17, 18:4) of Paul preaching
and attracting both Jews and devout gentiles in the synagogue must have some historical credibility.
15
on occasion at least, preach circumcision of Gentiles who turned to Christ. Whatever conclusion one may draw from Gal 5:11 concerning the chronology of events, it seems clear that Paul motivated the inevitability of persecution with a reference to the obstacle of the cross (skandalon tou staurou), which points in the same direction as my reading of the crisis in Galatia.
5
One principle, two interpretations
At the end of this investigation, I need to assert my disagreement with the prominent assumption that Paul and the gentile Christ-believers in Galatia differed concerning what it meant to be saved by a gracious God. Instead, my reading tells me that both Paul and the gentile Christ-believers in Galatia were convinced of the sola fide (by faith alone) principle. However, for Paul, Christ was both the subject and the content of faith. Salvation was given by the faith of Christ and with the objective of a Christ-like faith,17 which means that whoever receives the faith of Christ by grace is also empowered and called by the Spirit to live in Christ-like faith. In the context of this reading the Christ-like faith enacts the fundamental principle of imitatio Christi crucifixi. Whoever rejects the effect of the gift has breached the contract and will ultimately be cut off from Christ (2:19-21; 5:4). Being equally persuaded of the sola fide principle as the basis of their new existence, the gentile Christ-believers in Galatia seem to have opted for a different set of implications. They had put their trust in Christ for the assurance of salvation and were at peace with God. However, they had not fathomed Paul’s implications of the consequences of being given the gift of a Christ-like faith. They were probably in agreement with Paul that circumcision has no spiritual significance in Christ. Yet, they had not made the connection between the rejection of circumcision and the obstacle of the cross (skandalon tou staurou). In addition, their concern may have been mainly for social conversion, i.e. to be circumcised for the purpose of their standing in society. Their status as gentile Christ-believers had become a pressing issue, even to the point where some were tempted to abandon the newfound faith and return to their previous religious affiliations (4:9). So-
17 Regarding the interpretation of pistis Christou (“Christ’s faith”) and dikaoō (“justify”) I
concur with Richard that Paul uses these phrases to speak of “God’s world-transforming eschatological verdict as it pertains to individual human beings.”(Hays, Richard B. 2000. The Letter to the Galatians: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections. In The New Interpreter's Bible: Second Corinthians-Philemon, XI. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 237; cf. also Hays, Richard B. 2002 [1983]. The Faith of Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Structure of Galatians 3.1-4.11. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. xxix).
16
cial conversion to Judaism seemed a reasonable way out of an unbearable situation. Thus, two contextualizations of life in a Christ-like faith had brought about a crisis between Paul and the Galatian believers. The differences were not so much about how to receive salvation in Christ, than about being followers of the crucified Christ in different contexts.
17
