Galatians 1:6-24

I think of yesterday’s first reading, 1:6-12, as the opening of the Body of the letter. The omission of the Thanksgiving strikes me even now as a little shocking because even in situations that seem to have run out of control in other cities (think Corinth) Paul manages more than a perfunctory Thanksgiving. The lack of a Thanksgiving indicates that Paul either feels that there is truly nothing in Galatia for him to give thanks - and would that not be a little shocking? - or that Paul wants to shock the Galatian Christians to life because they are in danger of losing the Gospel. Paul, in fact, accuses the Galatians of "forsaking" the Gospel and turning to another Gospel. He quickly states, though, that there is no other Gospel, but that "some" want to pervert the Gospel(1:6-9). Who these people are that wish to preach some other Gospel has always been an open question. It seems that they must be Christians who still maintain the necessity of following the Law of Moses (which will become clearer as we continue to read this letter). This raises a question we should discuss over the next few days: do Christians not still follow God’s law? How could God’s law not be relevant? At this point, however, Paul simply argues that those who teach anything beyond the Gospel brought by Paul are "accursed (1:8, 9)," which is strong language, the language of ancient polemic. Paul then asks, rhetorically, if he in saying this is only attempting to curry favor or "please people" (1:10). This is clearly a claim made against him. Most likely, his opponents in Galatia have argued that Paul’s Gospel is a watery gruel, designed to make people happy by removing the need to follow the laws of circumcision or kosher, for example, but not aimed to please God or meet true human need. Paul’s reply: his Gospel is not his, it is from God (1:11-12) and what he preaches, he preaches due to a revelation from Jesus Christ, a clear reference to his Damascus Road experience. Paul uses this event to segue to his background in Judaism, when he still was a persecutor of the Church and not its proponent (1:13-24,the first reading for October 7). Paul, persecutor of the Church, was called by revelation to proclaim the Gospel to the Gentiles; this call, and the Gospel, were not given by human authorities (1:15-19), not even Peter, whom Paul often calls by his Aramaic name, Cephas. What is most important to Paul’s argument is his divine revelatory call, but Paul is also letting the Galatians know that as a former Pharisee, "zealous for my ancestral traditions," Paul knows the law and what it means to follow the law with love and dedication. Yet, somehow, God’s gracious call, literally, turned Paul to Christ and away from his former life in Judaism. Why should this be the case? John W. Martens
Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.

Advertisement

The latest from america

 10.17.2018 Pope Francis greets Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago before a session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican Oct. 16. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
“We take people where they are, walking with them, moving forward,” Cardinal Blase Cupich said.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 20, 2018
Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018