Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Galatian situation

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Galatian situation
  • Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 23:32:16 -0700


The creative thinking in the recent threads has led me to re-think my view
of Gal 1-2, and I would now like to propose the following:

1. Neither Paul, nor the influencers, nor the addressees acknowledged the
authority of the Jerusalem apostles.

2. In Gal 1-2 Paul is combating the view that the gospel of
non-circumcision had come from the Jerusalem apostles, rather than from
God. Everybody knew that the apostles did not require that Gentile
believers be circumcised. The Galatians were probably being persuaded by
the influencers that Paul had preached this gospel to please the apostles,
and that he himself did not accept it.

It seems to me that throughout Gal 1-2 Paul is refuting the claim that he
had preached Gentile liberty only to conform to the doctrine of the
apostles. Here is a paraphrase which attempts to illustrate this point:

From Paul, an apostle of God, not a messenger of the Jerusalem pillars
(1.1). Some people are throwing you into confusion by claiming that I was
preaching my gospel of Gentile liberty to please the pillars (1.7-10), and
that I really believe in circumcision (5.7-11). But my gospel did not come
from them, but came by revelation from God (1.11-12). It could not have
come from them, for I had very little contact with them (1.15-24). My
gospel is independent of them, for it was _I_ who presented it to _them_,
and I did not even know whether they would accept it (2.2). I was certainly
not preaching it to please them, for their status means nothing to me (2.6)
and I actually opposed them because they were not strong enough in their
support for the gospel (2.11-13). They did not give me my gospel (2.6b,10).
On the contrary, they merely recognised the vocation that I already had
(2.7-9).

In 2.6 Paul is not saying that the pillars added no Judaising element to
his message. On the contrary, he is saying that they added no
Gentile-liberty element to his message: his gospel was fully formed before
his visit to Jerusalem. Paul's purpose in 2.6-10 is the same as that in
1.1,10-24, namely to make it clear that his gospel was not from man.

This reconstruction strongly suggests that Mark is right to suppose that
the influencers were from Galatia rather than Judea. If they had been from
Judea they would have known that the non-circumcision gospel had not
originated with the Jerusalem apostles.

We can answer the point that Loren raised:

>Paul is combating circumcision (proselyte
>conversion) in Galatia, and had there already been an
>official decision regarding circumcision from
>Jerusalem, I find it hard to believe that he wouldnÂ’t
>have played this “trump card” (as Witherington puts
>it). Nothing would have been easier.

Paul does not cite from the letter of Acts 15.24-29 because the position of
the Jerusalem church on this issue was not in doubt. The Galatians already
knew that the Jerusalem apostles did not require circumcision etc. for
Gentile believers, as Paul and his companions had already delivered the
decisions of the council to them (Acts 16.4). What was in doubt was whether
Paul had received the teaching from the Jerusalem apostles (mere men) or
from God.

Acts 16.1-4 provides the background to Galatians. The circumcision of
Timothy and the delivery of the decrees were bound to cause confusion. It
is no wonder the influencers concluded that Paul really supported
circumcision and that when he delivered the degrees he did so out of
loyalty to the apostles, not out of conviction. Paul responds to their
misunderstanding by being so emphatic about his own position (5.2-3 and
1.8-9).

Richard Fellows
rfellows AT intergate.ca
Vancouver






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page