Skip to main content

Galatians 1:6-10 and the Overall Argument of Galatians

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that person be under God's curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let that person be under God's curse!

10 Am I now trying to win human approval, or God's approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. (TNIV) [1]


Here we begin to get more information about the nature of the problem in the Galatian churches. Paul had been to Galatia and preached the gospel to them. He notes with much astonishment that they have quickly fallen away from God to a different 'gospel' at the influence of false teachers, who we will call 'the Teachers' for the rest of our series on Galatians. Paul begins this way to lay out what was at stake.

The Teachers had been teaching something that was in opposition to what Paul had preached (we will explore more about the content of their teaching in a later post) and taught when he first came to Galatia. Paul construes turning from his gospel to be deserting God himself, which is why he was so concerned. One thing to notice is that 'turning' is a present tense verb (continuous aspect) which means that the action of turning hasn't been completed yet (Dunn p. 40). Paul is holding out hope that he can stop them from completely deserting God by abandoning the gospel.

Paul's rhetoric in verses 8 and 9 seems a bit harsh. It is helpful to note that overblown language was a typical element of Greek rhetoric (McKnight p. 59-60) and hence we don't have to feel compelled to call down damnation on those whom we believe are distorting the gospel. At the same time we don't want to minimize the fact that these verses show that Paul believed that the issue here in Galatia was of the utmost seriousness. The stakes are very high and certainly leading people away from God is the most serious crime one can commit. He wanted to stress the importance of getting the gospel right and try to begin a disassociation of the Galatians from the Teachers.

In verse 10, Paul is answering an objection laid against him. His goal, no matter what the Teachers claimed, was to please God in the way he preached. He did not claim that you received entry into the family of God by grace alone through faith apart from the Law in order to make it seem easy and gain converts.
_________

[1] In my opinion the most difficult decision in outlining the subsections of Galatians as whether or not to include verse 10 with 6-9 or 11-12. I include it in this section because I think that the γὰρ (untranslated by TNIV usually translated 'for') in verse 10 is not completely concessive and hence verse 10 should be taken with 6-9 (Dunn p. 48).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "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? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5