My previous post summarized the overarching message of the letter to the Galatians; in this one I can dig a bit deeper into the historical issues of authorship, date, and occasion.

Like Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians, there is little doubt among scholars that Paul wrote Galatians.  It is characteristically his theme, theological outlook, mode of argumentation, writing style and so on.  Many of the themes/issues he addresses here recur in his letter to the Romans, though under completely different circumstances.  In both letters he wants to stress a major point of his gospel message, that justification, (being made right with God) comes only through the death and resurrection, not through keeping the Jewish law; but whereas in Romans he is explaining his gospel in relatively calm and measured (even if passionate) terms, in Galatians he is on the attack against Christian missionaries who oppose him and his message, and any of his converts who side with them.

Romans is usually considered the last of Paul’s surviving letters; there are debates about the dating of Galatians.  Some scholars have considered it one of his earliest letters, in 48 or 49, but most think it was more likely written in the mid 50s, about the same time as the Corinthian correspondence but to different Christians, with different problems, related to different “false” ideas of other Christian teachers.

On the blog I sometimes discuss lost writings of early Christianity that I would love to see turn up some day, and there are few that I would like to see more than those produced (assuming any were)  by Paul’s enemies among the Christians.  I don’t know how many of his opponents were writing-literate, but possibly some of them were, and their own attacks on him and defenses of their own positions would be fascinating and eye-opening.  Among these, I would especially love to see what his opponents in Galatia had to say for themselves.   My hunch is that they were every bit as aggressive and confident in their views as Paul was in his.

As with all of Paul’s letters, the only way to make sense of Galatians is to figure out its original context, the “occasion” for which Paul wrote it, and the only way to figure out its occasion is to read the letter itself carefully and look for clues.  They are not hard to find in this case.  Paul established the churches in the region of Galatia (as I indicated: in modern Turkey – the central part going north to south) as he was traveling through the region.  He had taken ill; people there restored him to health; he converted them; and the church was (or the churches were) started.   His converts were gentiles, who had of course worshiped pagan gods.

After the church was going and Paul had left, other Christian missionaries arrived who preached a different gospel from Paul’s.  In their view, which they proclaimed with force and vigor, these pagan converts to Christianity needed to become Jewish.  Paul, in their view, was completely wrong about that.  They apparently argued that he had corrupted the gospel message proclaimed by Jesus’ own followers, the disciples in Jerusalem (and Jesus’ brother James, the leader of that most important Christian community).

Unfortunately we don’t know exactly what these anti-Pauline missionaries actually said, how they argued their position, what “proofs” they adduced.   But it is possible to take some stabs at it.  It seems likely that they insisted that since Jesus was the Jewish messiah, sent from the Jewish God, to the Jewish people, in fulfillment of the Jewish law, then obviously being a follower of Jesus meant being Jewish.  Jesus, for them, did not abrogate the law, he fulfilled the law.  And so too will his followers.  Of course they will.  Following the Jewish savior of the Jewish people meant becoming Jewish.

And that meant keeping the laws of Scripture.  When God gave the laws to the Jews, his chosen people, he expected them to keep them.  Why else would he have given these laws through his great prophet Moses?   If someone wants to belong to the people of God, it means following these laws.  God has not changed his mind about what is right and what is wrong.  If you want to belong to God’s people, you follow God’s laws.  You observe the Sabbath; you follow the kosher food laws (no pork; no shellfish; etc.); you keep the Jewish holy days; and if you are a male, you get circumcised.  Being circumcised is part of the “eternal covenant,” as God himself puts it in Scripture.  It is eternal.  It is not temporary.  All of God’s people – well, the males – will have the mark of the covenant on them.  They will be circumcised.

These “Judaizing” missionaries, who urged the keeping of the Jewish law for the followers of the Jewish Jesus, were probably themselves converts from paganism.  One piece of evidence for this is Paul’s (remarkably) sarcastic comment in 5:12, that he wishes that his opponents “who are unsettling you” would “mutilate themselves.”  In other words, he hopes that when they themselves get circumcised, the knife will slip.  Literally the Greek says “that they will be cut off.”

In Paul’s opponents’ view, this understanding that following Jesus meant observing the Jewish law was and always had been the Christian message.  Paul, for them, was an innovator, proclaiming a false gospel that he had made up himself by twisting what the earliest apostles – Jesus’ own disciples – had said and continued to say.

Paul responds by writing a letter in white-hot anger.  He pulls no punches.  As I indicated in the previous post, he begins the book by indicating that anyone who preaches a gospel that differs from the one he preaches is cursed by God.  His is the only true gospel. The reason he gives some of his biography in chs. 1-2 is to prove his credentials.  He did not get his gospel message from the apostles before him (and then corrupt it).  He didn’t even *meet* with any of them for years after he had received the gospel.  He received his gospel directly from Christ himself, who appeared to him after the resurrection.  And so anyone who disagrees with him disagrees with both Christ and God.

Anyone who thinks that they must keep the law has not just done something unnecessary.  They have absolutely misunderstood what salvation is and have failed to attain it, not recognizing that it is Christ and Christ alone that can bring a restored relationship with God.

This does not mean, however, that a follower of Jesus will lead a “lawless” life.  On the contrary, only those who are in Christ will be able to live moral and upright lives.  And so the final two chapters lay out some of the ethical mandates of life in Christ.

Paul’s opponents vehemently disagreed with these views.  They no doubt said so with vigor.  I think it is much to be regretted that we only get Paul’s side of the argument, the side that became part of the Christian canon.   What we would give to see what they said in reply!