Paul's Letter to the Galatians

The "Life of Paul" class gets a lot of my attention these days. At the end of the last class session (on Monday), we broke with three questions: Who are Paul's opponents in Galatians? How does their "gospel" differ from Paul's gospel? And what do they say about Paul himself? The students were assigned to read Galatians on their own, and to come to class tomorrow with some answers to at least one of those questions.

Since I've given that assignment, I figure it might be a good idea to come up with some answers of my own. Here's what I've written down so far. I'd be glad for you to comment on or ask about any of this. It's a work in progress. What do you think?
_________________

At both the beginning and near the end of the Letter to the Galatians, there are clear indicators that Paul's message has its detractors among the churches he's writing to:

• "Evidently, some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ" (1:7).
• ". . . the one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty" (5:10). From the other references to Paul's opponents, it's apparent that "the one" here means "anyone" or "everyone." Paul is not thinking of an individual here.
• "As for those agitators . . . " (5:12).

So, who are these opponents of Paul? What sort of confusing messages do they teach? And what are they saying about the Apostle himself? A few passages give us a good bit of information that we can use to answer the second question: What do they teach?

For example, in 3:10-14, Paul speaks against any attempt to rely on one's observance of the law.

Later, in 4:8-11, he compares and contrasts "knowing God" with a very different experience in which the Galatian Christians, prior to their conversion, were enslaved by "those weak and miserable principles." Paul says he knows that the Galatians are now "turning back" because they are "observing special days and months and seasons and years." These would presumably include, above all, observance of the Sabbath, but also times like the Day of Atonement, New Moons, and the Passover, etc.

Finally, in 5:1-12, Paul argues against the requirement of circumcision for Gentile converts to Christianity. And, he makes a case against Gentiles themselves giving in to such demands.

So, it appears that the problem is, following Paul's establishment of the churches in Galatia, other Jewish Christians have arrived telling the new Christians that observance of Mosaic commands is not optional. Rather, it is mandatory. Scholars often call these teachers Judaizers, Jewish Christians who disagreed with what they regarded as Paul's overly-liberal teaching, and who contradicted that teaching.

The message of the Judaizers was news to the Galatians. Originally, they were told by Paul and Barnabas that the standard for everyone, both Jew and Gentile, was faith in Jesus Christ, and repentance and obedience towards God. This did not include biblical-traditional mandates such as Sabbath observance, circumcision for the men, and kosher dietary regulations.

Naturally, because of such differences, the Galatians would have been confused. They would have wondered which side was right. And they would have asked the judaizing teachers questions like, "If your version of the Christian message is true, then why did Paul teach us what he did, something that was very different?"

At this point, the Judaizers apparently answered by saying that Paul preached a different message because he was (a) confused and (b) driven by bad motives. From Paul's protests in the letter, we can "overhear" a handful of such accusations. It seems that Paul believes that his opponents have leveled the following charges against him:

1. Paul told you what he did because he is a people pleaser. He wants to be liked by others. And that is precisely why he lowered the standards for becoming, in Christ, a true Jew.

This seems to be what Paul is trying to deny in 1:10: "Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." But the Judaizers didn't stop there. They also said something like,

2. Paul learned the gospel from other people. What he knows of the Christian message, he was taught by someone else.

In 1:11-12, Paul shoots back. The gospel I preached, he says, is not something I received "from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." In 1:13-14, Paul recounts his previous way of life in Judaism. Why does he do that, and at this point in the letter? He seems to be asking the Galatians, "What could possibly have knocked me off of my determined course, other than divine intervention?" Also, by relating some of his early-Christian biography, even giving specific time periods, Paul clearly intends to distance himself from Jerusalem and the Apostles who lived there. His implication is that he could not have gotten his message from them because, following his conversion, it was a long time before he even met any Apostles. But the opposition wasn't through. Apparently, they also said things like,

3. Having been taught the true gospel in Jerusalem, Paul traveled to places like Galatia where he misrepresented the message he had learned from the real Apostles.

Paul is clearly responding to that sort of accusation in 2:1-10. Notice the implicit questions in this section. Paul wants to ask two things in particular:

a. If the Apostles at Jerusalem believe that circumcision is so important, why didn't they insist on it for Titus when he was right there with them? (2:3)

b. If the leaders in Jerusalem disagree with my gospel, then why did they extend to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when I reported to them exactly what I preach? (especially 2:2 and 9).
Yes, says Paul, there are differences between myself and Peter. But those differences have nothing to do with message. They are differences only in target audience. I have been given the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, while Peter, on the other hand, has been given the task of preaching the gospel to the Jews (verse 7).

But the Judaizers had another arrow to shoot at Paul. Apparently, there was a story making the rounds. According to some, when the Apostle Peter came to Antioch while Paul was there, the two of them had a heated discussion, some sort of falling out. The agitators took this story to mean that when Peter and Paul compared notes at Antioch, they discovered that they did not, in fact, preach the same message.

Is this what Paul is responding to in 2:11-16? It seems so. Paul appears to be offering an alternate interpretation of the story the Galatians have heard. According to Paul's version, yes, he had had a spat with Peter. But it wasn't because the two of them believed different things. It was because Peter "was in the wrong" (v. 11). He had come to Antioch, where he enjoyed table fellowship with Gentile Christians. However, when "men came from James" (v. 12) Peter distanced himself from his Gentile brothers because he was afraid of what the James people would think and say. Peter's actions, says Paul, were a practical rejection of "the truth of the gospel" (v. 14). Something had to be done! So, says Paul, "I opposed him to his face" (v. 11). I said to Peter, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" (v. 14). "Peter was acting like a hypocrite," says Paul. "And that's the reason why we got into it at Antioch."

Okay, I know, there's so much more that can be said about Galatians. But I need to stop here. Thoughts? Observations? Questions? Help?

Learning How to Teach

This morning, the New Testament Survey class is getting better acquainted with the life and letters of Paul.  For their exercise in contextual thinking, the students are being asked to pair off and to read Romans 14:1-6 and Galatians 4:8-11.   The questions are: 

1.  Does a first-time (or “surface”) reading of these two passages suggest that Paul has a consistent view on whether it’s alright for Christians to observe special days? 

2.  Is it possible that, between the writing of Galatians and Romans, Paul has not changed his mind, and that his viewpoint on this topic is consistent? 

3.  If your answer to question 2 is “No,” then explain why the two passages cannot be reconciled.  And if your answer to question 2 is “Yes,” explain how these two apparently-inconsistent passages can be reconciled.

I’m passing this along as an example of how one teacher raises the issue of contextual interpretation.  It’s just one part of my attempt to develop and identify good models and strategies for changing the dynamics of class time from “my answers” to “their questions.”

It seems that the old and usually-inefficient model of “the sage on the stage” is dying.  (I say “usually-inefficient” because I’ve known a few fabulous lecturers).  The model that seems to work better for most teachers and which students increasingly expect and prefer is “the knowledgeable tour guide.”

Thoughts?  Suggestions?  Ideas?

Learning to Teach

I want to become a good teacher. I mean, a really good teacher.

I’ve had some great teachers myself. So I know what they can mean to a person. I want to do what they did as well as I can. In some ways, I’ll never equal the best of them. But in other ways, I’m convinced, I can do as much or more.

Something else I’ve become convinced of is the simple fact that although good teaching begins with mastery of the field of study, it doesn’t end there. Someone once said of Yogi Berra, “He knows more about baseball than anyone else; it’s too bad he can’t tell anyone else.”

I want to know and be able to tell. In my experience on the receiving end of instruction, mastery of a subject does not necessarily translate into great teaching. It helps, of course. But it’s no guarantee. Some of my greatest teachers would have been considered lightweights at professional meetings. Other people were presenting the academic papers and publishing the articles. But my best teachers knew how to bring what they learned to the classroom. That knowledge did not seem to depend on the relative merit of their academic credentials or publishing careers.

What I probably need to focus on is not more knowledge (although that wouldn’t hurt, and I have plenty of room for improvement there). Instead, what I want to do is to refine my method. Better yet, I want be refined as a person who knows how to really teach.

So, towards that end one of my current questions is, How can students be led to care about, be interested in, and think with a biblical text? One way, of course, is for them to become involved with the text it in some way. That idea is the genesis of what follows.

I was preparing to give an overview of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Taking my cue from something that Luke Johnson says in his book “The Writings of the New Testament,” I came up with a short assignment that served as the beginning of the class session. Each student was given a copy of what follows:

Imagine for a minute that one of your close friends, a guy named George, has been duped. He’s young, perfectly healthy, and has no problems breathing. But a medical-equipment salesman, with all the fervor of a fiery preacher, has sold him a respirator. “It’s the only way to really breathe, George!” the salesman had told him.

Of course, you realize that there are people who really need a respirator; sometimes people depend on them to live. George doesn’t begin to fall into that category. But whenever he’s at home, he connects himself to his respirator. He doesn’t like to leave it, but he will venture out of the house now and then, only if he takes his oxygen bottle. (The oxygen bottle was sold to him by another salesman who heard about George and pegged him for a sucker).

All of this is completely ridiculous. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. But it is tragic. It’s ruining George’s life. You have decided that enough is enough. Although you know longer live in the same state as George, you want to do what you can to help him. So you decide to write him a letter. What would you write?

Once the students wrote for about 5 minutes, I let them volunteer to read their letters to George. Some of them were pretty funny. And we had a lively discussion about the kinds of things George needed to hear.

I have no idea if the exercise helped the students to better understand Paul and the Galatians and the “judaizers” and the rhetoric of the letter. I hope it did, and I certainly don’t think it hurt. If things like this can help, then I want to come up with other interesting ideas and methods for leading people to encounter the texts for themselves, and not merely hear about the texts from me.

I’m writing up this little report to ask for your feedback on any or all of it. This teacher wants to learn. What do you think? What can you tell me?