The problem that Paul addresses in this letter did not arise from internal tensions among the converts, but rather from outsiders who opposed Paul’s teachings. Paul did not confront his opponents in person, however. At some point when Paul left Galatia, his opponents, who were Christian missionary teachers, made their way into the house churches and began to spread a different message. When Paul heard about this infiltration, he wrote the letter, which is a swift, personal and fiery response. While Paul expresses bewilderment, despair, and frustration, the dominant emotion is anger. Paul is not only angry with the missionary teachers that have been undermining his gospel and disturbing a seemingly peaceful situation, but he is also angry with the Galatians themselves for listening to their teaching (3:1, 10). Paul’s disposition is immediately noticeable since the beginning of the letter does not include the customary thanksgiving prayer for the community.

​

What kind of teaching precipitated such a response? Broadly, it emerged out of the issue that concerned the relationship between the Jewish law and the inclusion of the Gentiles into the community of the people of God. As Christianity began to expand outside its Jewish matrix into the pagan world, a prominent question that would forever alter Christianity emerged: Should the pagan converts practice Jewish legal and ethnic requirements? More specifically, the missionary teachers were trying to convince Paul’s converts that they needed to complete their new faith by observing Jewish legal requirements, particularly circumcision.

​

The information about the identity of these missionary teachers is minimal. They were certainly Christians, since they believed that Jesus was the Messiah and that he rose from the dead. We can also affirm that they vigorously promoted Jewish legal and ethnic practices among Gentile converts to Christianity, but we cannot say with certainty where they came from, where they derived their authority, and what their other beliefs may have been. Some scholars have speculated that they came from Jerusalem and were disciples of James and/or Peter. Others have suggested Antioch, which probably already had a Jewish Christian community (Gal 2:11-21). While there were certainly theological and ethnic fractions among the early Christians, we have little in Galatians that would confirm any specific affiliation. It has also been proposed that the opponents were not missionaries at all. Rather, they were members of the fledgling Christians community that may have been influenced by outside groups. Whoever they were, there probably were not many of them, at least not in Galatia, since Paul metaphorically refers to them as “a little yeast” that affects the “whole batch of dough” (5:9). Many scholars have referred to these opponents of Paul as “Judaizers.”

 

 

Info Box 16.11: Judaizers

 

Although “Judaizers” is a widely-used designation for Paul’s opponents, it is a nebulous term because it can be used of any group that promotes the practice of Jewish laws, customs, and rituals. In Module 13 (Acts), the designation was used of Christian Jews. However, it can be a catch-all term that can refer to non-Christian Jews and even to Gentile Christians who have adopted Jewish customs, which is how the term is used in ancient sources. Notice that Paul does not identify his adversaries by name, which was customary in antiquity in order to avoid free publicity. He simply calls them “some people” (1:7), “anyone” (1:9), and “they” (4:17; 6:13).

​

​

While Paul identifies his adversaries as belonging to “the circumcision” (6:13), it is not clear whether they were born Jews who had converted to Christianity or whether they were Gentiles who had fully submitted to Jewish practices as part of their newfound Christian identity. Paul’s sarcastic comment that they would “go the whole way and emasculate themselves” (5:12) may indicate that they were Gentiles who underwent circumcision as part of their conversion process, though it is by no means definitive. Since the rhetoric functions to create shock value, either option is possible.

​

In responding to his opponents, Paul focuses on defending his initial teachings, which he calls his “gospel,” and his apostolic authority. His defense takes the form of a long autobiographical section, which recounts his former status in Judaism, his persecution of Christians, and his new life as an apostle of Christ. The details should probably be viewed as responses to the undermining of Paul’s authority by his opponents. Paul sets the defensive tone immediately in the first verse by writing, “Paul, an apostle—sent not with a human commission nor by human authority, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father” (1:1). The same posture is reiterated in 1:11-12, with Paul saying “I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any human source, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” Statements like these effectively undermine the authority of his opponents, who may have argued that, unlike the other apostles, Paul had no contact with Jesus during his ministry.

​

Since his authority, and teaching, came directly from God, Paul felt no compulsion to consult with, or receive authority from, the other apostles (1:16-17). His accounts of sporadic meetings with them clearly indicates that he did not approach them as a subordinate, but as a fellow apostle and evangelist. He recounts that his first meeting, which took place three years after his conversion, was only with Cephas (probably Peter) and James (1:18-19). The second meeting, which focused on the circumcision of Gentile converts, occurred in Jerusalem fourteen years later. Paul deliberately undermines his opponents by conveying that his teaching was endorsed by the leaders in Jerusalem, whom he calls “pillars” (2:2-3; 6-9). 

​

​

​

Paul’s Argument Against the “Works of the Law”

 

Despite its ethnic import, Paul’s central argument in Galatians is theological in nature because its ultimately goal is God’s plan for humanity. However, Galatians is not a theological treatise. It is an occasional letter whose theology is embedded within particular social and rhetorical matrices that concern covenant identity.

​

Since the Judaizers’ insistence on circumcision was symptomatic of a larger problem that concerned the role of the Jewish law for Gentile Christians, Paul broadens his approach by addressing the original intent of the law and its function in relation to Jewish identity. His main concern is not the specifics of the Leviticus laws or the Ten Commandments, despite their inference in 3:17 when he specifies that the “law” came 430 years after the promise was given to Abraham. Rather, Paul’s concern is with the “works of the law,” which primarily refers to religious practices that separated Jews from Gentiles, namely circumcision, Sabbath, and dietary restrictions. These practices took on a particularly important ethnic role during the Seleucid period when Hellenization challenged and sometimes threatened Jewish identity. However, the “works of the law” is not a category that is simply restricted to these practices, despite their overt role in the letter, especially circumcision. The category is broader, including values, traditions, perspectives, and can imply the entire law given to Moses (3:10; 5:3).

The root of Paul’s argument is based on the righteousness of Abraham in the Genesis story. Since God deemed Abraham righteous because of his faithfulness, and not because of his subsequent circumcision of Isaac (which Paul omits), so also the Gentiles are deemed righteous based on their faithfulness and not the ethnic requirements of the Jews.

 

 

Info Box 16.12: 4QMMT and the “Works of the Law”

 

Although the term “law” occurs thirty-two times in Galatians—referring to the Mosaic code, the broader story of Abraham in Genesis 16-21, and the law of Christ—it is the phrase “works of the law” that is of particular importance. Until the discovery of the Dead Scrolls, the phrase “works of the law” was only found in Romans and Galatians. In the Scrolls there is one document, which has been named 4QMMT, that contains the same phrase in Hebrew where it refers to the boundaries between purity and impurity within the broader scope of Judaism. (“MMT” stands for the first letters in the Hebrew phrase “works of the law.” The “4” represents the fourth cave where the document was found, and the “Q” stands for Qumran.) Unlike Paul, however, the author of 4QMMT argues that righteousness is achieved on the basis of the works of the law. Moreover, both Paul and the author of 4QMMT appear to rely on the paradigm of cursings and blessings in Deuteronomy 27-28, but use them in opposing ways. For Paul, the law brings the curse; whereas for the author of 4QMMT, it is the source of blessing. Although we do not know who wrote 4QMMT, and it is doubtful that Paul knew the document, it nevertheless may have been representative of the views that were held by Paul’s opponents.

 

 

 

Covenantal Nomism

​

Paul’s response to the Judaizers is best viewed from the perspective of what E. P. Sanders has coined “convenantal nomism.” While the term “covenantal” is a well-known category that refers to an agreement or contract between two groups or individuals in relationship with each other, which in this case is Israel and God, the term “nomism” is less known. It stems from nomos, the Greek word for “law,” and here refers to the legal observances of Jews in Paul’s day who wanted to remain in right relationship with God. Sanders’ concept of covenantal nomism has changed the landscape in how many scholars view the role of the law in Second Temple Judaism. Instead of viewing the legal observances as acts or works of righteousness that earned God’s acceptance—as has largely been the Christian view for centuries, Sanders showed that the legal practices should be viewed as responses to God’s acceptance and redemption that is established on the basis of his grace. Therefore, the practice of legal observances is not about getting into covenant relationship with God, but rather it is about staying in covenant relationship with God.

​

Since Paul distances himself so much from Jewish observance in Galatians, it is no wonder that many scholars have questioned his Jewishness. Despite his strong claim to Jewish identity in other letters (e.g. Phil 3:5), he would have been clearly viewed as suspect by the majority of his Jewish contemporaries. It is important to note, however, that Paul wanted to identify with his Gentile converts who were strongly instructed that they did not need to become ethnically Jewish to remain Christian. The covenantal acceptance of the Galatians was based on their faithfulness to Paul’s gospel, which was confirmed by their reception of the Holy Spirit (3:2, 5). Like Abraham, their faithfulness was credited to them as righteousness. Therefore, Paul vehemently argues that the practice of circumcision and other ethnic observances nullify the sufficiency of their faithfulness and God’s gift of the Spirit. His argument has three major points: (1) faithfulness is sufficient, (2) God’s covenantal promise always included the Gentiles, and (3) the law served a temporary function.

 

 

 

Faithfulness is Sufficient

 

The first part of Paul’s argument against the Judaizers emphasizes that the life of faith should be consistent with its initial reception. Since the Galatians were incorporated into God’s covenant on the basis of their faithfulness to the gospel, and in turn have been given the Holy Spirit, Paul encourages them to remain in the assurance of God’s grace. The Judaizers thought otherwise. While they may not have been directly opposed to Paul’s preaching that Jesus is the crucified Christ or that God has given his Spirit to the Galatians, they insisted that the life of faith as Paul preached it was not sufficient, but required completion. In contrast to Paul, they preached a “gospel” message that included the practice of the works of law, specifically circumcision, presumably because they believed that such practices were commanded by God. For Paul, this simply undermined the Galatians’ faithfulness and gift of the Spirit.

​

Although Paul is furious with the Judaizers, he does not turn his argument into a clash of personalities that incites alliances. Rather, his argument focusses on a clash of teachings, or “gospels” as he calls them (1:6-7). Paul fervidly defends his original teaching as the true gospel that he received from God. By contrast, anyone who advocates for a variation—be it angels, his adversaries, or even himself—should be rejected and deemed “anathema” (1:8-9).

 

 

 

God’s Covenantal Promise Included the Gentiles

​

In the second part of his argument against the Judaizers, Paul appeals to scripture, insisting that God’s covenantal promise to Abraham always included the Gentiles. Because Abraham responded to God, he was blessed and was promised that “all nations will be blessed in you” (Gen 12:1-2, 7; alluded to in Gal 3:8). As a result, the Gentiles did not need to become ethnic Jews in order to receive the promise. Paul reinforces this claim by appealing to the covenant that God established with Abraham, which predates the giving of the law by 430 years (3:17). However, he unexpectedly omits the enactment of circumcision as a sign of an “everlasting” covenant between God and Abraham in Gen 17:9-14. Nevertheless, since the law was not a replacement, the original covenant made with Abraham on the basis of his faithfulness is still binding (3:6). At this point, Paul boldly points out that the promise was given to both Abraham and his “descendent,” namely Christ (3:16). This singular reference ran contrary to the conventional reading of “descendent” as a collective—that the Judaizers probably forced—because the Genesis accounts refer to the plural “descendants.” Thus, those who are faithful to Christ reproduce his faithfulness and become Abraham’s children (like Isaac) and heirs of God’s promise (4:28).

 

 

Info Box 16.12: “There is neither Jew nor Greek” A New Ethnic Identity?

 

One of the most well-known verses in Galatians is 3:28 where Paul breaks down the ethnic boundaries between Jews and Gentiles (as well as social status and gender), writing, “There is neither Jew nor Greek.” Philip Esler in his commentary on Galatians raises interesting questions about the new identity that Paul assigns his converts. If they were no longer members of their respective ethnic groups, how did they distinguish themselves from their heritage, traditions, and families? Did they actually abandon the practices that characterized them as Jews or Gentiles? How were they perceived by the non-Christian members of those ethnic groups? And, did Paul’s coverts constitute a third kind of ethnic group that had a stable and even desirable social identity? All of these questions, however, must be filtered through Paul’s apocalyptic mind-set. Since Christ was returning very soon, there was no time for changing the Empire’s social structures. As a result, Paul’s statement on equality identifies a third ethnic group, the eschatological followers of Christ who are awaiting the end of the age.

 

 

 

The Law Served a Temporary Function

 

The last part of Paul’s argument against the Judaizers addresses the inevitable question about the purpose of the law. In 3:19-29, Paul argues that the law was never part of God’s original plan. It was ordained, not by God, but by angels as a temporary means of guidance and discipline for Israel until God fulfilled his direct promise to Abraham by sending Christ (3:19). The law was intended to communicate God’s divine will and to place parameters on the behavior of his people, though strict observance of the law could not itself place someone in right standing before God. Only faithfulness, as initially exemplified by Abraham and ultimately by Christ, could bring about the kind of righteousness and justification that fulfilled the original promise. So, the law is not particularly negative, but Paul certainly wants to emphasize that it was not given to Israel in the same way or for the same purpose that the promise was given to Abraham.

​

Paul was clearly fearful of the law getting a foothold in the local churches because it would ultimately take over as it did in Antioch. Ultimately, if Paul allowed the law (even as a whole) to have the authority that it once did when he was a Pharisee, it would deny the faithfulness of Christ (his suffering, death, and resurrection) in whom both Jewish and Gentile Christians find their new identity as the covenant people of God. (2:20). So, the law was temporary and preparatory, but it no longer speaks for God; only Christ does. Paradoxically, Paul appeals to scripture to show that the law itself plays no role in righteousness; it only makes one a transgressor (2:18). In contrast to those who depend on faith, he draws on a modification of Deut 27:26 to show that any dependence on the law only leads to a curse (3:10). In short, the law simply offers no grace. The details of his criticism of the law in relation to the Christian life is described in more detail several years later in his letter to the Romans.

 

 

 

Themes

 

The Faith(fullness) of Christ

 

One of the most important features in Paul’s theology is his use of the phrase, “faith of Christ.” It is expressed in various ways in Galatians (2:16, 20; 3:22), Romans (3:22) and Philippians (3:9, 26), such as “the faith of Jesus Christ,” “the faith of Christ,” “the faith of the son of God,” and “the faith of Jesus.” The interpretation of this phrase has been highly contentious for two reasons. First, Paul’s use of the word pistis, which is usually translated as “faith,” can refer to “belief” or “fidelity/faithfulness.” And second, the genitive case which we often translate into English as “of Christ,” can be taken either as an objective genitive, conveying “faith in/about Christ,” or a subjective genitive, conveying “Christ’s faith.” Traditionally, scholars have understood the word pistis as “belief” and coupled it with the objective genitive. Thus, the resulting phrase, “faith in Christ,” refers to Christian belief in Jesus. In the early part of the twentieth century arguments began to emerge in favor of translating pistis as “fidelity/faithfulness” in conjunction with a subjective genitive, thus rendering the phrase as “Christ’s faithfulness,” which is how it has been interpreted here. However, Christ’s faithfulness, which is love expressed in self-sacrifice, is not simply a description of Jesus’ obedience, but it is both the cause of and model for the faithfulness of his followers (Gal 2:20), who take on a new human identity. Jerome Murphy O’Connor well-captures Paul’s understanding of Christian identity when he writes, “In opposition to those under the Law, who acquire a functional unity through obedience to commandments, the Christian community is an organic unity; its members are the integral parts of a living being (Gal 5:4)” (205).

 

 

 

Freedom in the Spirit

 

Since, for Paul, the law could only identify behavior that was contrary to God’s will, it was powerless in fulfilling the promise of covenantal inclusion, which could only be achieved through faithfulness and God’s gracious giving of his Spirit. It is by “walking in the Spirit,” and not according to the law, that the Galatians can successfully combat the desires of the flesh (5:16). Though life under the Spirit is contrasted with life under the law, the Spirit and the law are not seen as opposing each other. Instead, the Spirit is the empowering presence from God that allows his people to overcome the very evil that the law was only able to identify as sin. Thus, the Spirit is able to bring about freedom from the law, but a freedom that does not lead to greater expressions of sin and selfishness. Instead, the Spirit ushers in a freedom that actively seeks to bring about God’s will in the face of adversity and temptation. Paul uses allegory to describe the new community as the free children of Sarah as opposed to the enslaved children of Hagar (4:21-5:1). For the modern reader, it is important to point out that freedom was the property of the community, not the individual. Belonging to the community made the individual free.

​

This gift of the Spirit was given as a response to the Galatians’ faithfulness to Paul’s proclamation of the gospel of Christ. Any attempt to become righteous by keeping the law, or simply through human endeavor, is considered by Paul to be a rejection of the gift and the work of the Spirit. Instead of living in freedom, the only other alternative is to live in slavery under the master of the law and the “elements of the world” (4:3, 9), by which he probably means the common understanding of daily life under the influences of oppressive societal and spiritual forces.

 

 

Info Box 16.13: Ethical Behavior without Law?

 

If the law is no longer valid for the Christian, then how is ethical behavior prescribed or regulated? Although Galatians does not directly address this question, it clearly emerges from Paul’s view of the law. From other undisputed letters, Paul grounds all ethical behavior of Christians in the faithfulness of Christ, enacted in his sacrificial love. Since Christian identity is defined by the life of Christ, it is governed by sacrifice, faithfulness to God, and love. While Paul does not shy away from ethical directives when they are required, they should be freely chosen and not imposed. Perhaps in response to the allegation that without the law his converts would have no moral guidance, he sums up the whole law into a command to love one’s neighbor (Gal 5:14), which does not mean that he now endorses the law, but rather that law is realized by means of the Spirit. What this actually looks like in action is listed in 5:22-23. As the church expanded and became more institutionalized toward the end of the first century, the unregimented approach to ethical behavior inevitably began to face increasing challenges.

 

 

 

​

The Gospel for Everyone

 

The controversy with the Judaizers most likely led Paul to deeply reflect on the role of Jesus in the drama of salvation. While Paul had long believed that Jesus was appointed the agent of salvation, the controversy in Galatia forced him to articulate how Jesus’ death, as the ultimate act of human faithfulness, affects the nature of the Christian community. Paul’s main claim is that Christ’s faithfulness fulfills the promise given to Abraham that all nations will be blessed and included among the people of God.

​

Christ’s faithfulness (to the point of death) destroys pending death which the law at Sinai threatened. This is the “curse” that Christ became and from which he redeemed his followers (3:13; 4:4). Its impact was not only one ethnic people, or one geographical area, but the whole world. This, for Paul, is the gospel that breaks down deep-seated barriers between people groups. While Paul is primarily addressing the concerns that distinguish Jews from Gentiles, his principle of inclusion is much more comprehensive as it is classically expressed in the phrase, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (3:28). The gospel’s subversion of social, ethnic and gender barriers testifies to the scope of God’s redemptive work through Christ’s faithfulness, but it also places often uncomfortable demands on the church, both then and now.

​

​

(There is no quiz for this module)