Read an Excerpt
Galatians, Volume 41
By Richard N. Longenecker, Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker ZONDERVAN
Copyright © 1990 Thomas Nelson, Inc.
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-310-52194-5
CHAPTER 1
I. Salutation (1:1–5)
Form/Structure/Setting
Greek letters began with a formulaic salutation or prescript: "A to B," or at times "To B from A," with the greeting [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (lit. "rejoice"; colloquially, "greetings," "welcome," "hello"). So in line with the conventions of his day, Paul begins his Galatian letter with his name (v 1), an identification of his addressees (v 2), and a greeting (v 3). He also refers to those who join him in sending the letter (v 2), expands the greeting by the insertion of what appears to be an early Christian confession (v 4), and adds a doxology (v 5). More importantly, Paul goes beyond the epistolary conventions of his day by pouring into his salutation (1) affirmations regarding his aposdeship (v 1) and Christ's salvific work (v 4), and (2) allusions to God the Father's activity and will (w lb, 4b) and his converts' salvation (v 4)—thereby highlighting at the very beginning the central themes of his letter. In the process, two rather typical Pauline methodological features appear: (1) that of "going off at a word" (cf. the elaborations on "apostle," "God the Father," and "the Lord Jesus Christ") and (2) that of chiasmus (cf. "not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ and [from] God the Father").
Comment
1 [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], "Paul," is a Greek name that means "little." As a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin (cf. Phil 3:5), he proudly bore the name of Israel's first king, the Benjamite Saul. As a Roman citizen (cf. Acts 16:37–38; 25:10–12), he would have had three names: a clan or family nomen, preceded by a personal praenomen and followed by a more commonly used cognomen. Greeks and other provincials who gained Roman citizenship kept their Greek names as cognomens, to which they added Roman nomens and praenomens—usually those of the ones to whom they owed their citizenship. Neither Paul's nomen nor his praenomen appears in the NT. As a Jewish Christian missioner to Gentiles, he seems to have used only his Greek name Paul, which, as a Roman cognomen, would have been acceptable to both Greeks and Romans without bringing in any nuance as to status.
[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], "apostle," is the term Paul uses in Galatians, as well as in all his letters, to epitomize his consciousness of having been commissioned by God to proclaim with authority the message of salvation in Jesus Christ. In the NT the noun [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] connotes personal, delegated authority; it speaks of being commissioned to represent another. It is used broadly of anyone sent by another (cf. John 13:16, "an [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is not greater than the one who sent him"), of Christian brothers sent from Ephesus to Corinth (cf. 2 Cor 8:23, "They are [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] of the churches"), of Epaphroditus sent by the Philippian church to Paul (cf. Phil 2:25, "he is your [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]"), and even of Jesus sent by God (cf. Heb 3:1, "the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and high priest whom we confess"). More narrowly, it is used of a group of believers in Jesus who had some special function (e.g., Luke 11:49; Acts 14:4,14; Rom 16:7; Gal 1:19; Eph 3:5; Rev 18:20), with particular reference to the twelve disciples (Matt 10:2; Mark 3:14 [K B et al.]; Luke 6:13; 9:10; 17:5; 22:14; Acts 1:2, 26; passim). This narrower usage is how the term is usually used in its approximately seventy-six occurrences in the NT, and that is how Paul uses it of himself in all his letters: one with personal, delegated authority from God to proclaim accurately the Christian gospel.
This is not, however, the way in which [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] was commonly understood by either Greeks or Hellenistic Jews of the day. Classical Greek writers usually used the term in an impersonal way, most often to refer to a naval expedition for military purposes—even, at times, of the boat used to transport such an expedition. Josephus' one clear use of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] in Ant. 17.300 (the occurrence in Ant. 1.146 is textually uncertain) carries the verbal sense of "to send out" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is the noun in this passage for "delegation"). In fact, there are only a few references in all the extant Greek and Jewish Greek writings from the fifth century B.C. through the second century A.D. where the term means, or could be taken to mean, something like "envoy," "messenger," or "delegate," and so to signal the idea of personal, delegated authority (cf. Herodotus 1.21; 5.38; Corpus Hermeticum 6.11–12; POxy 1259.10; SbGU 7241.48; 3 Kgdms 14:6 LXXA; Isa 18:2 Symm.).
Karl Rengstorf has pointed out that though the NT's use of ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] cannot be readily paralleled in the Greek and Hellenistic Jewish writings of the day, it is comparable to the Jewish institution of the Saliah as found in the Talmud (TDNT 1:414–20). For in these codifications, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] (saliah) has an assured place as a noun meaning "envoy" or "messenger" and carries the notion of delegated authority—as in, for example, the oft-repeated dictum: "A man's Saliahis as the man himself" (m. Ber. 5.5; b. Ned. 72b; b. Nazirl 2b; b. Qidd. 43a; b.B. Qam. 113b; b. B.Mes. 96a; passim). According to rabbinic sources, a man could appoint a šalîah to enter into an engagement of marriage for him (m. Qidd. 2.1; b. Qidd. 43a), to serve a notice of divorce for him (m. Git. 3.6; 4.1; b. Git. 21a–23b), to perform ceremonial rituals on his behalf (e.g., the heave offering, m. Ter. 4.4), to act as his agent in economic matters (b. B. Qam. 102a, b), and so on. In fact, the authority of the sender was thought of as so tied up with the šalîah that even if the šalîah committed a sacrilege, so long as he did not exceed the bounds of his commission, it was the sender and not the šalîah who was held responsible (m. Meg. 6.1–2; b. Ketub. 98b).
Rengstorf further argues (1) that the Jewish institution of the šalîah served as the model for Jesus in calling his disciples and sending them out on his behalf (TDNT 1:424–37), and (2) that it was on the basis of Jesus' usage that the early Christian church used this concept for its own purposes and translated [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] by the relatively rare Greek term [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], probably first at Syrian Antioch (TDNT 1:420–24, 437–45). And Rengstorf has largely carried the day for the linguistic relation [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (cf. 3 Kgdms 14:6 LXXA, where the passive participle [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is treated as a noun and translated [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and for an early date for the origin of the šalîah institution in Judaism.
There are, however, certain significant differences between the rabbinic idea of a šalîah and the Christian concept of an apostle. In the first place, the appointment of an agent in Judaism was always a temporary matter; when the task was completed, his commission was over. The rabbis did not think of a šalîah as having a life-long calling, as is taken for granted of an apostle in the narrower sense of that term in the NT. More importantly, the šalîah was not viewed in a religious context or as a religious office, except in the sense that law and religion were inseparably intertwined in Judaism. The term, however, was never used of missionaries, proselytizers, or prophets. So while the concept of the šalîah in Second Temple Judaism provides to some extent a reasonable background for the use of the term [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in the NT, it falls short of fully explicating that background or adequately highlighting some of the most important features of an apostle in early Christianity. For such matters, we must look as well to ideas that developed within Israel's religion having to do with a prophet (cf. Comment on 1:15–16) and to Jesus' reconstruction of both the šalîah concept and traditional prophetology.
Playing on the inadequacy of the Jewish šalîah concept to explain fully the NT's use of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], Walter Schmithals has argued for a gnostic origin of the term (see his The Office of Apostle in the Early Church). In support, he cites various patristic references that use [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] of the gnostic teachers (e.g., Origen, Comm. on John 2.8; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.22 and 23.12; Tertullian, De Praesc.Haer. 30; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 11.35). In none of these passages, however, is it directly said that the Gnostics used the term in designation of themselves. Rather, every reference can be read as a Christian use of the expression "false apostle" (also "false prophet" and "false Christ") to characterize the Gnostics—which, of course, hardly proves that the NT usage was rooted in gnostic nomenclature.
[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], "not from men nor through any man," together with its accompanying positive assertions, is unique to the salutation of Galatians. In the salutations of his other letters, of course, Paul habitually identifies himself as an apostle (e.g., Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1, etc.; though in Phil 1:1 only as a [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], "slave" [together with Timothy; cf. the use of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in Rom 1:1 as well], and in Philem 1 as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], "prisoner"). In none of his other salutations, however, does he take pains to emphasize, first negatively and then positively, how he came to be an apostle. It is in these negative and positive parenthetical statements that we have both apology (defensive response) and polemic (aggressive explication) at their height. So by a process of "mirror reading," we can say with some confidence that Paul's converts had undoubtedly been given by the agitators at Galatia an account of his apostleship quite different from what he told them or what they had been led to believe by his early evangelistic preaching—an account which claimed that, despite what he asserted, Paul had actually received his authority from certain Christian leaders before him.
The authority of both a šalîah and an apostle stemmed from the one who commissioned him. So Paul affirms at the very beginning of his letter, in evident opposition to the claims of his opponents, that his apostleship was not derived from any human source ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) nor received through any human agency ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). Others may have been appointed by one or the other of the then-existing congregations (cf. his later mention of such appointments in 2 Cor 8:23 and Phil 2:25). The source of his apostleship, however, was not any such body of Christians, whether at Damascus, Jerusalem, or Syrian Antioch. Nor was it received through the mediation of Ananias (cf. Acts 9:10–19; 22:12–16), Barnabas (cf. Acts 9:27; 11:25–26; 13:1ff), Peter, James, or any other apostle. The double genitival use of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is undoubtedly generic, first in the plural with duo to denote source and then in the singular with [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] to refer to agency. It is not hard, however, to believe that behind these qualitative uses we should understand some particular church and some particular Christian leader or leaders as being in mind. And by the way Paul narrates events in 1:17–2:14, probably it was the Jerusalem church and the Jerusalem apostles who were being pointed to by the opponents—and who were being denied by Paul.
[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], "but through Jesus Christ and [from] God the Father," sets out the converse to Paul's denials with a positive statement as to the origin of his apostleship. Some find it strange that [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], "through," is used as the preposition before both [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], for, they believe, Paul would hardly have thought of either Jesus Christ or God the Father as an intermediary; so [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.] should be seen here more in terms of ultimate source than agency (e.g., Burton, Galatians, 5–6; Bruce, Galatians, 72–73, citing Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 1:9; Heb 2:10). Stranger still is the fact that the order here is first "Jesus Christ" and then "God the Father," which is a reversal of Paul's usual order when referring to God and Christ together (cf. the bipartite references of Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; 1:12; 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; Titus 1:4 [perhaps also 2:13]; Philem 3; though, of course, the tripartite "grace" of 2 Cor 13:14 has Christ first)—with that usual order reappearing almost immediately after this variant in the salutation of Galatians at v 3: "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." John Bligh argues that in the denials and affirmations of Gal 1:1 we have "a neat chiasm," which, he insists, explains the reversal of order in the second part and allows us to understand [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.], "from," as the proper, though unstated, preposition for [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (Galatians, 62). And while admittedly there is much in Bligh's work—particularly his seeing all of Galatians in terms of one large chiasmus—that can legitimately be called arbitrary, speculative, and even eccentric, his drawing attention to the chiastic nature of v 1 is, I believe, valid and to be applauded.
Indeed, Christ is no intermediary like Moses, as Paul labors to point out in Gal 3:19–20. Neither is he to be thought of in terms comparable to any human agency, as the strong adversative [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], "but," makes clear. Rather, he is to be seen as associated with God the Father—here as the agent in Paul's commissioning as an apostle (on Christ as God's agent in Pauline thought, cf. 2 Cor 5:19; 1 Tim 2:5–6), with that appointment having its source in God himself. Probably Paul had in mind his Damascus road experience when referring to Jesus Christ as the agent in his apostleship, for it was the risen and exalted Jesus who commissioned him to be God's missioner to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 9:15–16; 22:21; 26:16–18).
[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], "who raised him from the dead." As a Jew, Paul needed no arguments for theism, no arguments for God's concern as Creator for his creation, and certainly no arguments for God's redemptive interests in his people. Furthermore, as a Jew he thought of God more in terms of function than ontology. Having been confronted by Christ, however, Paul came to think of God principally in relation to what he accomplished redemptively through the work of Jesus Christ. So here when he speaks of God the Father, he speaks of him not in ontological terms but in categories more functional, redemptive, and Christocentric in nature: he is the one "who raised him [Jesus Christ] from the dead."
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Galatians, Volume 41 by Richard N. Longenecker, Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker. Copyright © 1990 Thomas Nelson, Inc.. Excerpted by permission of ZONDERVAN.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
