Research paper and Journal Article summarization

Galatians 1:1-2:14 Review and Expositor, 91 (1994)

Introduction to the Epistle and Paul's Defense of his Apostleship (Galatians 1:1-2:14) David S. Dockery

Paul's letter to the churches in Galatia focuses on the question: "What makes a person a Christian?" The answer to this question addresses the very heart of the gospel, indeed the essence of the Christian faith. Paul's message in this letter provided a foundation for the early church to address the Judaizing controversy and paved the way for the full liberty of the gospel. Few books have been as significant for shaping Christian doctrine, proclamation, and practice. Nowhere was this more apparent than at the time of the Reformation. One commentator has noted, "Martin Luther put Galatians to his lips as a trumpet to blow the reveille of the Reformation."1 Luther loved Galatians so much that he referred to it as his wife. He called it "my own epistle, to which I have pledged my troth, my Katie von Bora."2 It was his favorite book of the Bible, and he considered his commentary on Galatians his most profitable work. "If I had my way about it," he said, "they would republish only those of my books which have doctrine, like Galatians."3

It remains the case today, just as in the early church and reformation periods, to say that how one understands the issues and teaching of Galatians indicates what kind of theology is espoused, what kind of message is proclaimed, and what kind of lifestyle is practiced.4 This generation, as every other generation, needs to be reminded of the sole sufficiency of Jesus Christ for the redemption of humankind. Galatians sounds a clarion call for a vital relationship with Jesus Christ rather than mere religious ritual, for total trust in the Savior rather than dependence on self, for submission to the living Christ rather than subscription to dead creeds, and for a life enabled by the Holy Spirit rather than one ruled by legalistic rituals. This article will introduce us to Paul's apostolic authority, the recipients of the letter, his apostolic message, Paul's opponents, and early internal conflicts in the church.

Paul's Apostolic Authority (1:1-5)

Authorship

Paul's introductions follow the usual style of ancient letters by naming the writer, the addressee(s), and a word of greeting. In Paul's other letters he often includes a prayer or a word of thanksgiving for his readers, but this is

153

conspicuously absent in Galatians. The evidence for Pauline authorship is great both on the basis of internal evidence within the epistle and the external evidence derived from testimonies and scholarly investigation. Galatians 1:1 and 5:2 identify the writer as Paul. The autobiographical sections of the letter (1:11-2:14) point directly to Paul. The theology and language of the letter also well attest to Pauline authorship. The external evidence is equally convincing.3 W. G. Kümmel concludes, "That Galatians is a genuine, authentic epistle is indisputable."6 It is difficult to be sure where Paul was when he wrote the letter, but that he wrote it is not in dispute.

When we think of the authorship of Paul's letters we should think of Paul's companions acting as his secretaries and writing out the major portions of his letters at the apostle's direction. Galatians 6:11 suggests a distinction between the handwriting of the subscription and that of the body of the letter, indicating Pauls' use of a secretary in writing the letter.7

Recipients and Date

The letter is addressed "to the churches of Galatia" (1:2). Much discussion has attempted to settle the dispute of the identity of the recipients as to whether the letter was sent to the churches in South Galatia or North Galatia. Prior to the work of W. M. Ramsay in the 1890's,K the recipients were assumed to be Christians of Gaulish descent whose churches were located in Northern Asia Minor. The problem for interpreters of Paul's letter is whether the "Galatians" to which this epistle is addressed refers to ethnic Galatians in the north of the province or to the southerners of various races who were included in the Roman province. By the end of the third century, the southern area was separated leaving the northern sector to be known as Galatia or Galatia proper. But this does not necessarily mean that Paul used the term in this way. Paul visited the southern area on his first missionary journey (Acts 13-14). Never is it said explicitly that he visited the northern area, though many think this is what is meant in Acts 16:6 and 18:23.

The question is a very difficult one. Much of the argument for the date of the writing and the identity of the recipients depends upon answering whether Galatians 2 should be correlated with Paul's famine visit to Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30) or the visit at the time of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15). The arguments can be summarized as follows:

North Galatia

(1) The North Galatia identity is based on equating Galatians 2 with the Jerusalem council of Acts 15. Both the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch are involved and the time can be harmonized.

(2) Paul, Barnabas, Peter, and James are mentioned in both accounts, along with certain disturbers.

154

Galatians 1:1-2:14 Review and Expositor, 91 (1994)

(3) The topic of Gentile circumcision is the basic issue in each account. The same result occurred in each: Gentiles were exempted from circumcision and the apostolic mission of Paul and Barnabas was recognized.

(4) Titus (see Gal. 2:3) can be understood to be included among "the certain others" of Acts 15:2.

(5) Galatians 2:2 appears to parallel Acts 15:4,12.

(6) Some have argued that Paul's apostolic mission was not recognized until after the Acts 11 visit (not until after Acts 13:1); whereas it seems the recognition was understood prior to the Galatians 2 visit.*

South Galatia

(1) The same two churches (Jerusalem and Antioch) were involved, with the trip being initiated by Antioch.

(2) According to the data in Galatians, the trip described in Galatians 2:1-5 was Paul's second visit to Jerusalem since his conversion; and according to Acts this would have been the famine visit (11:27-30). To argue as some do that no apostles were in Jerusalem at this time and thus Paul ignored this visit is hardly consistent with his obvious intent of removing suspicion by recounting all the data (Gal. 1:20). His use of "Then" (epeita in Gal. 2:1) leaves no hint that any trip has been omitted.

(3) At the Galatians 2 visit no question was brought before the church, nor was any authoritative answer given. The "only" exhortation was that they continue remembering the poor. This fits Acts 11 better, inasmuch as Acts 15 concerned a problem and gained an official response.

(4) The Acts 11 visit had only two delegates and Galatians 2 agrees, for Titus is described in terms suggesting he was a subordinate (sumparalabon in Gal. 2:1). Acts 15, however, suggests that other delegates were with Paul and Barnabas (15:2).

(5) The Galatians 2 visit was made in response to divine revelation, which could be understood as a reference to the prophecy of Agabus (Acts 11:27- 30).

(6) The private discussion of Galatians fits more easily Acts 11, than the Jerusalem council of Acts 15.

(7) The question of circumcision was more likely to have been discussed again (see Acts 11:1; 15:1) following a private meeting than after a formal

Statement. Similarly, Peter's actions, though not excusable, nevertheless are more easily understandable if the "circumcision" issue had not yet been formally decided.

(8) There is no reference in the epistle to the official decisions of the Jerusalem council, which could have been most informative for his argument.10

The issues are notoriously complex, and every interpreter weighs the data somewhat differently. While the brief summaries offered above do not account for all the possible factors in making a determination, the balance of the issues favors a South Galatian hypothesis.

Determining the date of the letter is closely intertwined with the identification of the recipients. The North Galatian theory would suggest a date for the writing in the mid-50's. If the South Galatian theory is adopted, an early date is possible. We can suggest that Paul's two visits are those of Acts 9 and 11 and Paul wrote Galatians prior to the Jerusalem council. Thus, the letter, which may have been the first letter Paul wrote was most likely penned around A.D. 48-49.11

Paul's Authority and Message

In these first five verses Paul touches on two themes to which he will return again and again throughout the letter: his credentials as a writer and his gospel. He had good reasons to do so because the churches had been bothered by false teachers since Paul had founded the churches. These false teachers had mounted opposition to both Paul's authority and message. Understanding the dangers of their twofold attack, Paul immediately initiated his response at the beginning of the letter. John R. W. Stott has observed:

He [Paul] will elaborate these themes later in the Epistle, but notice how he begins: Paul an apostle (not an imposter)... giace to you. These two terms "apostle" and "grace" were loaded words in that situation, and if we understand their meaning, we have grasped the two main subjects of the Galatian Epistle.12

In these introductory verses of the letter Paul traced three stages of divine action for the salvation of men and women. The first stage focused on the death of Christ for our sins to rescue us out of this present evil age. The second stage described the appointment of Paul as an apostle to testify to Jesus Christ who died for sins and rose again. The third stage centered on God's gift of grace and peace to believers to which Paul bore witness. Before moving to his discussion that occasioned the epistle (1:6-10), Paul concluded his first paragraph with a characteristic doxology.

156

Galatians 1:1-2:14 Review and Expositor, 91 (1994)

Paul's Opponents and Their False Gospel (1:6-10)

In the place of Paul's customary thanksgiving following the salutation (see Rom. 1:8; 1 Cor. 1:4-8; 1 Thess. 1:2-10), which was a common practice in Greek letter writing, we find an indignant polemic. Paul asserts that there is no other gospel than the one he preached to them at first and he expresses concern that the Galatians are defecting from this gospel. As R. Y. K. Fung notes, "This reflects the seriousness of the situation into which the Galatians have fallen: because they are deserting the one true gospel Paul can find no cause for thanksgiving to God, but can only express astonishment instead."13

The Influence of the False Teachers

The implication of the phrase "so quickly," expressing the Galatians' defecting from the one who called through the gospel, is that only a short time had elapsed since their conversion. Though it should be noted that it is possible that the word translated "quickly" (tácheos) has the sense of "easily" (see 2 Thess. 2:2; 1 Tim. 5:22). Either translation emphasizes Paul's astonishment.

The word translated, "are deserting" (NIV) represents a Greek present tense verb and should be communicated as an English continuous present, such as "are turning away from" (Goodspeed) or "are moving away from" (Rotherham). It signifies transferring allegiance and is used of soldiers in the army who revolt or desert, and of people who change sides in politics or philosophy. Thus a certain Dionysius of Heracleia, who left the Stoics to become a member of the rival philosophical school, the Epicureans, was called ho metathemenus, "a turncoat."14 Paul accuses the Galatians of being spiritual turncoats, turning from the gospel of grace to another gospel.

The Identification of the False Teachers

Who were the proclaimers of this "other gospel" and what was their message? So much has been written on the identity of Paul's opponents at Galatia and there is such a welter of opposing opinions and conflicting theories that exegesis can easily become swamped. The consensus opinion during the patristic and Reformation periods was that Paul's opponents were Jewish Christian Judaizers.

Beginning with F. C. Baur (1831), this consensus was challenged.15 Various options that have been suggested include:

1. Some have argued that Paul's opponents should be understood as libertines (see 5:13-16).16 But it is better to see the exhortation: "do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature" as a corrective to a perversion of Paul's teaching regarding Christian freedom.

2. J. Munck contended that the opponents were some of Paul's own Gentile converts who considered themselves insufficiently instructed by Paul and felt the need to conform to the teaching of the Jerusalem church.17 Yet, the letter suggests that the agitators came from outside.

157

3. W. Schmithals has suggested that the Galatian heretics were Jewish Christian gnostics.18 This option, however, has few followers since it is based on numerous dubious assumptions.

4. Robert Jewett has articulated a view that identifies the Galatian agitators as a politically oriented group of nomistic Christians in Judea. The agitators employed the tactic not of opposing Paul or his theology, but of offering a completion to it (3:3) through the means of circumcision.19 But, as Fung and Longenecker have shown, Jewett's hypothesis is less than satisfying.20

The traditional understanding of the Galatian heretics as Judaizers remains the most likely view.21 Their message challenged Paul's gospel of grace with their rigorist approach toward Gentile believers. They attempted to impose circumcision and the observance of the law as conditions necessary for salvation and complete status in the church. It was their insistence on including these additional teachings as essential aspects of the gospel message that caused Paul to denounce the agitators as perverters of the gospel.

The Gospel Message

Paul would not tolerate these wrongheaded additions to the gospel. For Paul, the gospel is the good news of God's gracious activity toward undeserving sinners. In grace God gave his Son to die for sinners. In grace, sinners are called by God to himself. In grace, God justifies sinners who believe.22 For Paul, the gospel message means nothing is due to human effort or merit. Salvation is totally "from God" (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18). To add human works to the gospel of grace was for Paul anathema — it was "really no gospel at all" (Gal. 1:7). Let the Galatians beware: yes, there are different messages, but Paul makes clear these different messages cannot be understood as alternative perspectives, but as perversions of the gospel.

Paul's warning was not only a word to the churches in Galatia, but remains an inspired word for us today. The messages of today's numerous cults, new age philosophies, contemporary universalistic tendencies, and certain radical process and liberation theologies likewise are not, just alternative perspectives, but are perversions of the gospel. The true gospel can be recognized by what it is (a word of grace) and where it comes from (God). The true gospel magnifies the free grace of God.

Verse 10 suggests that not only did the false teachers oppose Paul's gospel, but also accused him of courting human favor and being a compromiser. Paul responded by affirming the integrity of his motivations. Was Paul merely a people pleaser? His answer: "No! I want God's approval!" (TEV). Paul's consuming passion was to serve Christ.

Paul's Apostolic Call (1:11 -24)

In verses 6-10 Paul affirmed that there is only one gospel. In verses 11-24 the apostle shows the relationship between the origin of the gospel and his own call

158

Galatians 1:1-2:14 Review and Expositor, 91 (1994)

as an apostle. Was Paul's gospel message the product of his own creative imagination? Was it borrowed from others? Paul answered these questions specifically in this section.

Apostolic Apologia

Against insinuations that his apostleship was derived and dependent, Paul maintained that it came by direct call and election from God (1:1,15). Paul contended that his life had been turned around in a divine encounter with Jesus Christ (1:12). His gospel was not his own creation, and he was not dependent on the Jerusalem leadership for his apostolic call or his apostolic message (1:16). His only meeting in Jerusalem was private and it took place three years after he had begun his ministry (1:18-20) .23

The Significance of the Genre

Paul explained what happened before his conversion/call (1:13-14), what took place at his conversion/call (l:15-16a), and the results of this revelatory event (l:16b-24). Recent interest in rhetorical criticism has raised questions about the genre of Paul's apologetical approach.24 The "apolegetic genre" has been defined by H.D. Betz as one that "presupposes the real or fictitious situation of the court of law, with jury, accuser, and defendant."25 In the case of Galatians, the addressees are equated with the jury, with Paul identified as the defendant, and his opponents the accusers. According to this theory the letter is a self-apology. Often this rhetorical strategy was employed without regard to the truthfulness of the message. This reason alone would cause us to doubt if Paul adopted his "apologetic" genre to argue his case. Additionally is the obvious question of whether the Galatians would have been likely to read Paul's letter as an apologetical letter in the technical sense.26

Moreover, F. F. Bruce has asked "whether in the excitement and urgency of the crisis with which he was suddenly confronted Paul would have been consciously careful to construct his letter according to the canons of the rhetorical schools."27 Particularly, is this the case in view of Betz's own acknowledgment that Paul is one with other Christian writers in regarding the art of persuasion as something negative and unfitting because of its identification with deception and slander (see 1 Cor. 2:l-5)?28 This seemingly would have undermined the integrity of Paul's defense of his gospel and apostleship.

The platform for Paul's entire argument is his character as (1) an apostle commissioned by Jesus Christ and God the Father (1:1), (2) a servant of Christ (1:10), (3) one who received from Christ the message he proclaimed (1:11-12), and (4) one who was set apart and called by God from birth to his ministry (1:13-24). On this basis his addressees are to believe him. It is because of his faithfulness to the gospel amidst fluctuating approval and deviation on the part of other Christian leaders that the Galatians are to have confidence in him.29

Theological Significance

Few issues are more pertinent in theological circles these days than the question of authority. How do we know what is true? Who has the authority to decide the answer to such questions? This was a major concern for Paul in Galatians because his apostolic authority had been questioned.

As noted above Paul claimed that his gospel came through a "revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:12). He traced this encounter back even further to when God had set him "apart from birth" (1:15). So we see that Paul's claims were grounded in revelation.

What was to prevent anyone from making a similar claim? Here was where Paul made his second point. He appealed to the dramatic change in his life. The one who formerly persecuted the church now preached the faith he once attempted to destroy (1:23). What could have brought about this change other than the transforming grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ? Paul willingly submitted his claims to be tested. His apostolic call and his apostolic message were grounded in his revelation from Christ and in the power of his transformed life. Similarly, theological and spiritual claims must today be submitted to these two tests. But not only these two; for Paul also claimed that his apostleship was confirmed by the other apostles (2:l-10).3(i It is to this final issue that we now turn.

Paul's Apostleship Confirmed (2:1-10)

One of the ways in which the false teachers of Paul's day attempted to challenge his authority was to suggest that his gospel differed from that of Peter and the other apostles. They then raised the question of whose gospel to believe if both are of divine origin. One of the apparent arguments of the Judaizers focused on this issue. Paul should not be believed, they claimed, for he was a minority of one when compared to the other apostles. Their aim was not "robbing Peter to pay Paul," but "exalting Peter to spite Paul."31 Paul's argument in chapter two was to show that his message was in harmony with the other apostles, even though independent of the other apostles (1:15-20).

The Jerusalem Visit

Paul explained that he went up to Jerusalem in accordance with a revelation from God (2:2).32 Paul's point was that the visit was not of his own initiative, but of God's. The purpose was to make known his story to the Jerusalem church.

Paul did not waiver on his understanding of the gospel; he just stated that it came by divine revelation. He was concerned that his ministry might be hampered and churches established among the Gentiles might be threatened by the Judaizing influences. Paul wanted the Jerusalem leadership to confirm his position in public view of the Judaizing detractors.

160

Galatians 1:1-2:14 Review and Expositor, 91 (1994)

Titus: A Test Case

Paul saw the issue clearly. The issue was not just a question of circumcision or uncircumcision, of Jewish or Gentile customs. The truth of the gospel was at stake; the church had to choose between Christian freedom or legalistic bondage. Titus was introduced as a test case. He was an uncircumcised Gentile, but also a believer in the gospel, and thus accepted by God in Jesus Christ. Nothing else was needed for Titus to receive salvation or membership in the Christian community.33

Paul stood firm. The Jerusalem apostles did not challenge Paul, but agreed with him (2:5). If the Jerusalem leaders would have countered Paul at this point, the Judaizers' message would have been confirmed and the doom and enslavement of Christianity assured. The tension of the moment may have been eased, but the future of Christianity would have been jeopardized. At stake was not a questionable matter (the so called adiaphora) to be decided by not offending the weaker party (see Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8-10). The issue was theological and concerned the nature of the gospel. Knowing the difference between these two requires great discernment. The church throughout history has often confused these matters standing firm when it should yield and yielding when it should stand firm.

Paul's Mission and Message Validated

Though there were differences between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles as to the focus of their mission, they were in unity regarding the essentials of the gospel. The Jerusalem apostles accepted the validity of his Gentile mission.34

They recognized that the mission of Paul and Barnabas paralleled their own. While affirming the Gentile mission, the apostles asked only that the needs of the Jerusalem Christians be kept in mind by those involved in outreach to the Gentiles.33

What is seen is that, though there was opposition to Paul's apostleship and his message at both Galatia and Jerusalem, the Jerusalem apostles confirmed that Paul's calling and ministry came about by the revelation of God.36 Thus the theological validity of Paul's authority and message was not only recognized, but confirmed.37

Paul and Peter at Antiooh (2:11 -14)

The details of this episode are lacking. We could wish for an account of this matter by Peter and Barnabas as well. There is much we do not know or understand. Many question why Paul's rebuke of Peter was public and not private. What is clear is that Paul again emphasized that the issue was theological and not cultural. Thus Paul dealt with the issue not as an incidental difference between believers, but as a direct challenge to the truth of the gospel.38

Paul may have handled the matter incorrectly. Peter, however, was certainly

161

wrong in his actions and Paul right in his defense of the gospel. The correlation of the two accounts in 2:1-5 and 2:11-14 lead to one conclusion: Paul withstood the false teachers at Jerusalem and Peter should have done the same at Antioch.39

Paul's point was that his readers must likewise confront the Judaizers in Galatia and contemporary believers must confront the real challenges to the gospel in our day as well.

]G. G. Findlay, "Galatians" in The Expositor's Bible (New York: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.), p. 3.

2Martin Luther, Luthers Werke (1538 edition; Weimar: Bohlaus, 1914) 40:2. 3Ibid. 4See Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word,

1990), p. xliii. This affirmation is reflected in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the earliest canons

of scripture, the Apologists, the teachers of the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools. See J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (1890; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, reprint 1971), pp. 55-62.

*W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the Neiv Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), 304. 7Cf. Longenecker, Galatians, lix-lxi. 8Cf. W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170 (London: Hodder

and Stoughton, 1893); idem., St. Paul the Travellei' (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1920). The best defense of the North Galatian theory can be found in J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians,

pp. 18-35. Also see Willi Marxsen, Introduction to the Neiv Testament, trans. G. Buswell (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), pp. 45-47.

'The major proponent of the South Galatian theory is F. F. Bruce, "Galatian Problems," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 51 (1968-69), pp. 292-309; 52 (1969-70), pp. 243-66; 3 (1970-71), pp. 253-71; idem., Commentaiy on Galatians, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp. 3-18. For a detailed and balanced evaluation, see Longenecker, Galatians, pp. lxi-lxxxviii. Also see Thomas Urrey, "An Introduction to Galatians," Southivestern Journal of Theology 15 (1972), pp. 3-18.

"See D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the Neiv Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 293-94. Also cf. George Ogg, The Chronology of the Life of Paul (London: Epworth, 1968), ρ 200; J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the Neiv Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), p. 55. H. D. Betz, Galatians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), p. 12, opts for a north Galatian setting, nevertheless suggests that Galatians is an early rather than late document. Note also the helpful and corrective comments on the situation in Galatia by W. D. Davies, Jewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), pp. 172-74.

12 John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove:

InterVarsity, 1968), p. 12. 13 R. Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians New International Commentary (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 43. l4 See C. Maurer, " melathemenos" Theological Dictionaiy of the Neiv Testament, VIII.161.

13 See F. C. Baur, "Die Chrisuspartei in der Korinthischen Gemeinde," Tübinger

Zeitschrift für Theologie (1831) 61-206. "See J. H. Ropes, The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians, Harvard Theological

Studies, 14 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1929), pp. 27,44-45. l7See J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (Richmond: John Knox, 1959), pp. 87-

134.

162

Galatians 1:1-2:14 Review and Expositor, 91 (1994)

'"See W. Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), pp. 13-46. w See R. Jewett, "The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation," Neiv Testament Studies

17 (1970-71), 206-11. a See the critiques by Fung, Galatians, pp. 5-7 and Longenecker, Galatians, pp. xcv-xcvi.

2I E. P. Sanders comments that "they were 'right wing' Jewish Christians" who

emphasized such passages as Gen. 17:9-14 (see Paul, the Law and thejeivish People [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985], p. 18).

-Much of the recent discussion around the message of Galatians has focused on the meaning of salvation and membership among the people of God. E. P. Sanders has advanced his understanding of "covenantal nomism" (Paul and Palestinian Judaism [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977]). See the correctives offered by Frank Thielman, From Plight to Solution (Leiden: Brill, 1989) and Mark Seif rid. Justification by Faith: The Original Development of a Central Pauline Theme (Leiden: Brill, 1992).

^See the discussion of "apostolic apologia" in Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the Neiv Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), pp. 306-07.

24 Most notably is H. D. Betz. See Galatians, pp. 14-25; Cf. G. Howard, Paul: Crisis in

Galatia, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 35 Cambridge: University Press, 1979), pp. 48-50.

^Betz, Galatians, p. 24. 2ft

See especially James D. G. Dunn's critique of Betz's discussion of Galatians 1:12-2:14 (Dunn, "The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2," Neiv Testament Studies 28(1981-82], pp. 461-78).

27 Bruce, Galatians, p. 58.

^See Fung, Galatians, p. 31. *Ί am following Longenecker, Galatians, pp. c-cxix, esp. cxv. ^See the helpful discussion by Wayne E. Ward, "Theology in the Book of Galatians,"

Southwestern Journal of Theology 15 (1972), 19-34. 3, See Stott, Galatians, 40.

32 The visit is described as taking place "fourteen years later" (2:1). It is debated

whether the "fourteen years" should be dated from the time of Paul's conversion (1:15,16) or from the time of his first visit to Jerusalem (1:18), which came three years after his conversion. Advocates of the first view tend to identify this incident with the famine visit (Acts 11:30) and maintain that the apostle would not in this context leave out any of his visits to Jerusalem. Those who adopt the second view claim that Paul did not intend to list all of his visits to Jerusalem, but only those of importance for his argument. The second view equates this visit with the Jerusalem council of Acts 15.

Those who adopt the first view usually accept an early date for the writing of Galatians and the south Galatians as recipients of the letter. The second view normally identifies Galatians with a later date written for those in Northern Galatia. See Bruce, Galatians, 3- 18; Donald Guthrie Neiv Testament introduction (Downers Gover: InterVarsity, 1990), pp. 472-83.

The matter is important for establishing a chronology of Paul's life, but of much less significance for the interpretation of the message of Galatians. For a view that questions the reliability of the Acts/Galatians chronology, see R. Jewett, A Chronology of Paul's Life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). For a defense of the reliability of the Acts/Galatians chronology, see C. J. Hemer, "Acts and Galatians Reconsidered," Themelios New Series 2 (1976-77), 81-88; idem. "Observations on Pauline Chronology" in Pauline Studies, ed. D. A. Hagner and M. J. Harris (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 3-18.

v See D. W. B. Robinson, "The Circumcision of Titus, and Paul's 'Liberty'," Australian

Biblical Revieiv 12 (1964), 24-42.

163

^Η. Ν. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, New International Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), pp. 89-90.

V R. Y. K. Fung, "A Note on Galatians 2:3-8," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

25 (1982), pp. 49-52. *R. Y. K. Fung, "Revelation and Tradition: the Origin of Paul's Gospel," Evangelical

Quarterly 57 (1985), 24-41. 37

See F. F. Bruce, "Paul and Jerusalem," Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968), 3-25. *J. D. G. Dunn, "The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-18), " Journal for the Study of the Neiv

Testament 18 (1983), 7-11; idem.. Unity and Diversity in the Neiv Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 253-54.

**See Longenecker, Galatians, pp. 71-80.

164

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.