In some ways, this has been considered the most Pauline of all the Pauline writings, the one in which anger has driven Paul to say what he really thinks. Only parts of 2 Corinthians match it in terms of passion, for with the prophetic fervor of an Amos, Paul abandons diplomacy to challenge the Galatians. It is not surprising that Christian innovators or reformers anxious to bring the church as a whole to make a 180-degree turn would appeal to the vigorous language and imagery of Galatians. Marcion translated Paul's antinomy between faith and the works of the Law into an antinomy between the creator God and the redeemer God. Luther called it his "favorite epistle" because he found support for his rejection of salvation by good works in Paul's rejection of justification by works of the Law. In fact, Luther's confrontations with papal emissaries were seen as a reenactment of Paul's public condemnation of Cephas (Peter) on behalf of gospel truth. In ancient times, Galatians may have contributed to a situation that 2 Pet 3:15-16 chose to describe diplomatically: "Our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him...in all his letters there are things difficult to understand that the ignorant and unstable twist to their destruction." One thing is certain: No one can blame Paul in Galatians for making theology boring.

1. The Background

   In the years before AD 55, Paul had preached the Gospel (perhaps twice) to the Gentiles who now constituted the churches of Galatia. Although his stay among them was caused or affected by a "weakness of the flesh" (4:13), the Galatians were more than gracious during Paul's affliction and treated him as an angel of God. It seems that they saw him perform miracles in their midst (3:5). This memory sharpens his indignation that the Galatians now see him (4:16) as an enemy who has somehow deceived them in his preaching of Christ. How did it come to this?

   After Paul left Galatia, Christians of Jewish origin (6:13) had come, probably from Jerusalem, preaching another gospel (1:7), that is, a different understanding of what God had done in Christ than Paul's. Their "gospel" must be reconstructed in mirror image from Paul's hostile refutation of it.

   In later Christian history, a sense of the sacredness of Scripture and respect for Paul as a great apostle naturally led Christians to the conviction that his Gospel was faithful to Christ and that of his opponents was not. Nevertheless, there is no convincing reason to think that "the preachers," as they are called, were fools or dishonest. Paul and the preachers agreed that what God had accomplished through Jesus the Messiah in terms of justification and the gift of the Spirit was intended for both Jews and Gentiles. But how were the Gentiles to receive God's gift in Jesus? According to Paul's preaching, God offered justification through "faith in Christ." According to the preachers, faith in Christ had a role to play, but justification was not complete without the observance of the works of the Law - a preaching that preserved for the Gentiles the great heritage of Judaism with all its ethical guidelines. A key factor in this preaching of works was the insistence on circumcision and observance of the calendar feasts (4:10). As the preachers explained, the one true God had blessed all the nations of the world in Abraham who believed (Gen 15:6) and then, as part of the covenant, gave Abraham the commandment of circumcision (Gen 17:10) and the heavenly calendar. The Jews are the descendants of Abraham through Sarah (the free woman) and observed the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:14) and the Law given by the angels to Moses (Gal 3:19); the Gentiles are the descendants of Abraham through Hagar (the slave woman). Through the preachers, the work of Jesus the Messiah was now extended to the Gentiles, who can be fully included in the covenant if they are circumcised in imitation of Abraham and do the works of the Law.

   But hadn't Paul already brought the Gospel to the Gentile believers in Galatia? According to the preachers: no. In order to make quick converts, Paul had preached a truncated gospel that did not tell them that the sharing of the Abrahamic covenant depended on circumcision. Paul had left them without the help of the Law, prey to the "evil inclination" and desires of the flesh; and that is why sin was still rampant among them. This message was convincing, especially if the preachers pointed out that Paul, who was a newcomer to the Gospel, had not known Jesus like the real apostles. After all, Jesus, who was himself circumcised, had never exempted anyone from circumcision; and the true apostles in Jerusalem observed the feasts and dietary laws. How could Paul respond to the preachers and get the Galatians to recognize that he had preached the truth? In analyzing the letter he wrote, we must keep in mind that the dispute with the preachers shapes its expression and wording. Too often, Paul's "theology" on justification, faith and freedom is taken from Galatians without recognizing the apologetic form.

2. General Analysis of the Message
   1. Opening Formula (1: 1-5)

      Unlike in 1 Thessalonians, Paul calls himself an apostle, a status that does not derive from human beings but from Jesus Christ (1:1 - and from God: 1:15). Of the seven undisputed Pauline letters, if we except Romans which was sent to a community that Paul had not evangelized, Galatians is the only one of the six remaining letters in which Paul does not name a co-sender. He addresses "the churches of Galatia," that is, a group of communities in the Galatian region or in the wider province of Galatia. Paul is the target of the attack in Galatia, and he makes a personal response - a response marked by anger that does not allow for thanksgiving.

   2. The Body (1: 6 - 6: 10)

      This part opens with a kind of exordium or introduction (1:6-10) which, in a biting tone of disappointed astonishment, quickly sets out the problem, the opponents and the seriousness of the case: There is no other gospel than the one proclaimed by Paul when he called the Galatians into the grace of Christ. Then, taking up the rhetorical pattern of legal defenses, Paul writes an apology in the form of a letter (2:11 - 2:21), polemical in tone but using a series of rhetorical devices. In the implicit setting of a court of law, the preachers who came to Galatia must be imagined as the accusers, Paul as the defendant and the Galatians as the judge. To appreciate Paul's arguments, one must keep in mind the claims of the preachers as reconstructed in the above context. Paul's main thesis is that the gospel he proclaims came by divine revelation and not by human beings (1:11-12). As a paradigm for this thesis, Paul tells the story of his conversion and preaching, addressing key points such as: the initial divine revelation and commission - no dependence on the Jerusalem apostles - the challenge to him by the party insisting on circumcision for the Gentiles; the agreement between him and the Jerusalem authorities to reject this challenge; and the recognition that he was entrusted with the gospel and the apostolate to the uncircumcised (1:13 - 2:10).

      In describing those of the circumcision party who later came from Jerusalem to Antioch claiming to represent James, Paul suggests that they were the progenitors of those who came to Galatia; for he merges his defense of the gospel at Antioch against the earlier opponents with a dialogue with the Jewish Christian preachers in Galatia (2:11-14 with 2:15-21). To paraphrase, "By birth we are both Jews and therefore know the Law; yet we also know that one cannot be justified by the works of the Law; for in seeking Christ we Jews have found ourselves to be sinners. Therefore I died to the Law and was justified by faith of/in Christ, who gave himself for me and now lives in me."

      Then Paul accumulates six arguments from experience and Scripture to convince the foolish Galatians who have allowed themselves to be bewitched (3:1 - 4:31).

      1. First (3:1-5), when he proclaimed Christ crucified, the Galatians received the Spirit without observing the works of the Law, so how can these works be made necessary?

      2. Second (3:6-14), against the preachers' insistence on Abraham's circumcision (Gen 17:10,14), he can cite God's promise that in Abraham all nations would be blessed (Gen 12:3) - a promise independent of circumcision - so that by giving the Spirit to uncircumcised Gentiles by faith, God is fulfilling the promise to Abraham, a man whose faith was counted as righteousness (Gen 15:6).

      3. Third (3:15-25), a will that has been ratified cannot be cancelled by a later addition. The Law came 430 years after the promises to Abraham; how can the inheritance of those promises depend on keeping the Law? The Law was only a temporary guardian until the coming of Christ.

      4. Fourthly (3:26 - 4:11), the Galatians, who were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe, have experienced, through redemption by the Son of God and divine adoption, the freedom of the "sons" (= children) of God; why do they want to become slaves again, this time to the requirements of the Law?

      5. Fifth (4:12-20), the Galatians treated Paul extremely well, like an angel; how could he become their enemy, as the preachers wanted to do?

      6. Sixth (4:21-31), the preachers appealed to Abraham, Hagar and Sarah, but drew the wrong lesson. Hagar, the slave woman, does not represent the descendants of the Gentiles but the present earthly Jerusalem and the slave covenant of the Law given on Sinai; Sarah, the free woman, represents the heavenly Jerusalem and the covenant of God's promise to Abraham - she is the mother of all those who have been set free in Christ

      After the arguments, Paul ends the body of Galatians with an impassioned exhortation (5:1-6:10) against the preachers and a warning that the Law will not help the Galatians against works of the flesh (which are opposed to works of the Spirit in 5:19-26). A wonderful statement in 5:6, "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any power, but faith working through love" makes it clear that Paul does not consider circumcision to be something bad, but rather something that has no power to bring justification to the Gentiles. It also suggests that Paul viewed faith accepting the efficacy of what Christ had done as something that should find expression in the love manifested in the life of the believer. Preachers may speak of "the law of Christ"; however, this is not the law of Sinai, but the obligation to bear one another's burdens (6:2).

   3. Conclusion

      Finally, Paul stops the scribe and writes in his own hand, in large letters, the conclusion (6:11-18) against circumcision, so that the Galatians cannot miss it. If the preachers were praising the superiority of Israel, Paul proclaims "the Israel of God" in which it does not matter whether one is circumcised or not. As for the preachers' attacks on him, "let no one trouble me any more, for I bear the marks of Jesus on my body." What Paul suffered as an apostle is more important than the marks of his circumcision!

3. The Aftermath of Galatians in Paul's Career

   We can only guess what happened when this letter was read in the churches of Galatia. Some may have been offended by the intemperate language that called them fools (3:1). Was it proper for a Christian apostle to indulge in low-level rudeness by wishing that in the circumcision advocated by the preachers the knife could slip and cut the male organ (5:12)? What gave Paul permission to disparage as "so-called pillars of the Church" the members of the Twelve who had walked with Jesus and the one who was honored as "the Lord's brother" (2:9)? Was this polemic not a sign of the weakness of his position? Others who had turned away from Paul, remembering the one who had brought Christ to them and realizing that beneath the polemical surface of the missive lay a tender concern (4:19), might have been led to question whether they had listened to the preachers. In the end, did Paul's letter win with the majority? It was preserved after all; and 1 Cor 16:1 (written later?) tells us that he planned a collection of money from the Galatian churches, no doubt with the hope of success.

   In any case, it is certain that elements of the letter hurt Paul: he had expressed himself in an untimely manner. (Did the scribe have the audacity to ask him if he really meant to phrase 5:12 ["Let them go so far as to mutilate themselves altogether..."] as he did?) Preachers who honestly believed they were serving Christ by advising Gentiles on the necessity of circumcision would surely not have forgotten Paul's personal attacks, including the one on their integrity and motives (6:12-13). If Phil 3:2 ("Beware of dogs! Beware of evil workers! Beware of false circumcision") was written shortly after Galatians, we can see the preachers' continuing mission to correct Paul's deficient evangelism. His remarks about the so-called pillars of the Jerusalem church, his polemic against Peter for not being on the right track regarding the truth of the gospel (Galatians 2:14), and even his unqualified assertion that the Sinai covenant resulted in bondage (4:24-25) most likely resonated with the Christian authorities in Jerusalem who favored the Jewish heritage. It is not surprising that Paul's later plans to return to Jerusalem with the collection made him doubt whether he would be accepted (Rom 15:22-32). In the second century, the strong anti-Law formulation of Galatians would serve Marcion's thesis that the OT must be rejected as the work of an inferior god (demiurge) - a thesis that Paul would certainly have rejected.

4. To Where and When?
   1. South Galatian Theory

      The Acts of the Apostles clearly shows that Paul evangelized the southern part of the province of Galatia, specifically Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe (on the "first missionary journey" in 46-49, and again briefly on the "second journey" in 50). This evidence, however, leaves little room for Paul's illness as the occasion for his first visit there. Moreover, Acts never clearly refers to the southern region as Galatia. Indeed, the book of Acts places the southern cities in their districts, not in the province: Antioch in Pisidia (13: 14), Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonia (14: 6). He also makes it clear that Paul's mission to the southern cities reached both Jews and Gentiles, but there is no indication in Galatians that any of the recipients were converted Jews. Arguments in favor of the southern theory include Paul's habit of usually (but not always) using the names of Roman provinces (e.g., Macedonia and Achaia), and the reference to Barnabas in Galatians 2:1 as if he were known to the recipients - he was with Paul on the "first missionary journey" but not thereafter. Yet was Barnabas' name known only to the Christians he had personally evangelized? Wouldn't his presence at the famous Jerusalem meeting have been more widely known?

   2. North Galatian Theory

      If the term "Galatia" can be ambiguous, the address "Galatians" in 3:1 is much less so. It is more appropriate for people who were ethnically of that origin than for the Hellenized population of the city to the south. When would Paul have come to the ethnic region of the Galatians? On the "second missionary journey" after Paul had revisited the southern part of the province (about 50), Acts 16:6-7 records: "They (Paul, Silas, Timothy) passed through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, having been restrained by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in [the province of] Asia. When they came across (to) Mysia, they tried to go to Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them to do so." Does Acts mean that they moved westward through the Phrygian region of the province of Galatia (so not yet into North Galatia), or that they moved northward through Phrygia into the territory of (North) Galatia proper? The first hypothesis seems more geographically logical - but if one accepts the second interpretation, the cryptic comment about being "hindered by the Holy Spirit" could be related to the fact that Paul was ill in Galatia (Gal 4:13) and thus hindered in his missionary endeavors. Whatever Acts means by "Phrygia and the Galatian region," Paul made converts there, for according to Acts 18:23, at the beginning of the "third missionary journey" (AD 54), Paul traveled from place to place through the Galatian region and Phrygia "strengthening all the disciples there," that is, implicitly, the disciples trained on the previous journey. Although it is not easy to judge, on the whole, the arguments supporting this northern theory seem more convincing.

   3. Dating

      Based on the theory of North Galatia, there are two propositions:

      1. After passing through the (ethnic) region of Galatia and Phrygia a second time, Paul went to Ephesus (Acts 19:1) where he stayed for three years (54-56). He was able to learn that teachers had come and "quickly" (Gal 1:6) rallied the Galatians to "another gospel" - news that prompted the writing of Galatians in 54 or 55. If the letter was successful (or, at least, if Paul hoped it would be), an attempt at healing might be signaled by Paul's plan in 1 Cor 16:1, when he was about to leave Ephesus in 57, to have the Galatian churches contribute to his collection for Jerusalem.

      2. Some scholars who believe that there could be no healing after a letter like Galatians argue that the plan in 1 Corinthians 16:1 was formulated before Paul learned what had happened to his converts in Galatia. He learned of it as he was leaving Ephesus or just afterwards; and abandoning the plan for a collection in Galatia, he wrote Galatians from Macedonia at the end of 57 (between 2 Corinthians and Romans) as a severe rebuke. The proximity of Galatians to Romans (written from Corinth in 58) is also advanced as an argument for this later dating.

      Even so, the mid-50s dating has more supporters, and I consider it more likely; but the evidence leaves the question open.

5. The "Faith [pistis] of Christ" (2:16, etc.)

   An important discussion has focused on what Paul means when he speaks of being justified or justification, not from the works of the Law, but from/through the faith of (Jesus) Christ (2:16; 3:22; also Rom 3:22,26; Phil 3:9). The construction "from / through the faith of Christ" is a very important one. (ek/dia pisteōs Christou) can be understood as an objective genitive, i.e. the Christian's faith in Christ, or as a subjective genitive, that is, the faith possessed or manifested by Christ. The debate also touches on the simpler and more common expression "from faith" (ek pisteōs). Both interpretations require comment.

   Faith in Jesus Christ is probably the most common interpretation and can be supported by Gal 3:26 which uses the preposition "in." In this interpretation, however, although faith in what God has done in Christ, especially through the crucifixion and resurrection, can be seen as a response that results in justification, it must be emphasized that God also generates the response - a divine grace given to believe, responding to the divine grace manifested in Christ. Christ's faith is sometimes understood as his faithfulness to God's plan, a faithfulness that resulted in justification. Others find this interpretation weak and prefer to think of the faith manifested by Jesus in going to the crucifixion without visible divine support, a representation that can be justified by the passion narratives of Mark and Matthew and by Heb 5:8. Still others affirm that it is the faith manifested by Christ to the point of giving his life that is passed on to the believer so that he, in turn, may share in that same faith. Whatever the case, this text from Galatians is an essential passage in the study of Pauline theology.

6. Issues and Problems for Reflection
   1. Since the beginning of the 20th century, some scholars have argued that Paul was fighting two groups simultaneously: the Judaizing Christians in Jerusalem who insisted that Gentiles be circumcised and the libertine (Jewish or Gentile) followers of the Spirit who claimed that believers could satisfy the desires of the flesh. It is to this second group that Paul would have addressed 5:16-26. Another proposal is that the preachers did not come from outside but from within the Galatian community, for example, Jewish Christians challenging the uncircumcised Gentile members of the community. Yet another proposal is that the preachers were Gnostics who advocated circumcision as a mystical rite that would bring the Galatians to a higher state of perfection, with or without the Law (6:13). For the most part, these proposals introduce unnecessary complications and circumvent the prevailing evidence that a group of Jewish Christian preachers came to Galatia, demanding circumcision of Gentiles who became followers of Christ.

   2. We saw earlier that Paul and the preachers disagreed about the interpretation of the story of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar, depending on how they combined the motifs of Gen 12:15 and 17 (God's promise that in Abraham the Gentiles would be blessed, Abraham's faith credited as righteousness and the covenant of circumcision). Now both Paul and the preachers employed a style of OT interpretation very different from much of modern exegesis, often because their exegesis, while very much in keeping with the Judaism of the day, was very loose and more than literal by our standards. Given the difference between ancient and modern exegesis, it is interesting to explore this question: starting from the literal meaning of the OT on the Abrahamic story, which would be more convincing to the modern reader, Paul's exegesis or that of the preachers, in making a decision about the obligation of Gentiles to be circumcised in order to be justified and become children of Abraham?

   3. Sometimes, again by modern standards, Paul's use of the OT is problematic because of the textual reading that underlies his interpretation. A famous example worth examining is the reference to faith in Habakkuk 2:3-4, an obscure passage that appears with remarkable diversity.
      1. According to the Hebrew Massoretic text, the prophet, who complains of injustice in the context of the Neo-Babylonian (Chaldean) conquests around 600 BC, is invited to wait for a vision that will surely come even if it is delayed. Unlike the arrogant and puffed-up person who is not upright, "the righteous person, because of his faith/faithfulness, will live," i.e., presumably because of his faithfulness or trust in the covenant God;

      2. The Septuagint translation of Habakkuk, though it speaks of a vision, says that even if he delays, wait for him, for he will surely come; it thus understands the vision as one of someone coming, perhaps the king of the Chaldeans as God's instrument. God will be displeased if the one in the vision withdraws, but "the righteous/justified of my faithfulness will live," that is, God's faithfulness to the promises made;

      3. In the Dead Sea Scrolls commentary on Habakkuk (IQpHab 7:5 - 8:3), the vision is explained by the Righteous Teacher and applies to the community of those who observe the Law. They will be freed from persecution "because of their deeds and their fidelity to the Righteous Master", that is, because they have observed his interpretation of the Law;

      4. The author of Hebrews 10:37-39 follows the Septuagint with some modifications, and seems to interpret the figure in the vision as Jesus at his second coming. "The righteous will live by faith," i.e., by being faithful until Jesus comes;

      5. In Galatians 3:11 (Romans 1:17), Paul writes: "The righteous shall live by faith," interpreting Hab 2:3-4 to mean that the righteous live by faith or faithfulness to Jesus Christ.

   4. Paul's position on his gospel is not based on the arguments he makes in his letter, but on a revelation (apokalypsis, unveiling) of Jesus Christ (1:12). This revelation gave Paul a new perspective that allowed him to see how God has transformed the world through Christ's crucifixion, and in 3:23.25 he gives an example of how his vision has changed. Thus, although he shaped some of Galatians' vocabulary and reasoning in light of the propaganda of preachers, much of what he says about Christ, faith, and freedom could have been said even if the preachers had never existed. Putting together the positive message of Galatians, regardless of its polemics, is very helpful in understanding Paul.

   5. Galatians contrasts the Law (32 times) and freedom (11 times with equivalents). Perhaps one of the attractions of the preachers' message was the clear ethical guidelines contained in the Law. Freedom is attractive but needs to be defined, as we see when we list freedom from sin, freedom from the Law, freedom from obligation and control, freedom to do what one wants, freedom from love and service. Freedom can leave the door open to license, as seemed to be the case in Galatia. Paul counters by criticizing a misunderstanding of freedom (5:13) and by warning those who walk by the Spirit not to be involved in the "works of the flesh" he lists (5:17-21). Ironically, his very words have become a kind of law guiding Christians on these points. In pastoral practice, what is the interplay between responsible freedom and clear guidelines at the edge of the law?

   6. In an apocalyptic mindset such as Paul's, there is little time to change the social structures of this world. Therefore, the famous denial of the difference between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female (Gal 3:28) is not primarily a statement of social or political equality. It is a declaration of equality through Christ in God's plan of salvation: "You are all one in Christ Jesus." The same Paul who formulated it was able to sanction inequalities among Christians: Gentiles are but a wild olive branch grafted onto the cultivated tree of Israel; those who were slaves when they were called to Christ must remain in that state; women must not be allowed to speak in the churches and must be subordinate (Rom 11:24; 1 Cor 7:20-21; 14:34). Nevertheless, many Christians recognize in Paul's statement an evangelical dynamism that could or even should exceed his vision. How can this be achieved theologically without making 3:28 an unwarranted anticipation of the French Revolution's ideal of equality?

   7. Marcion's NT canon was strongly Pauline: Luke and ten Pauline letters (starting with Gal!). His rejection of the Old Testament and the whole heritage of Judaism is generally considered an extreme derivative of Paulinism. On the other hand, Jewish Christians in the second century came to hate Paul as the one who had distorted the Jewish heritage and hindered the success of the gospel among the Jews. Scanning Galatians for statements about the Law that could fuel Marcion's absolutism and later Jewish-Christian antagonism allows us to see how Scripture can be read in a way the author never dreamed of.