Skip to main content

Paul's Argument in Galatians 4:12-20

12 I plead with you, brothers and sisters, become like me, for I became like you. You did me no wrong. 13 As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you, 14 and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself. 15 Where, then, is your blessing of me now? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. 16 Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?

17 Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may have zeal for them. 18 It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always, not just when I am with you. 19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, 20 how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you! (NIV)

Following Longenecker I see this passage as the start of a new section, the request section. Now that Paul has built the Scriptural and experiential foundation of his appeal he now goes ahead and makes it. The appeal starts with a call for the Galatians to become like Paul, meaning, that just as Paul was loyal to the gospel and died to the law for the sake of the Gentile Galatians, they should do the same. They should be loyal to the gospel by not erecting boundaries where none should be. This reminder of how Paul was when he came to them segues into his appeal on the basis of their prior experience together.

When Paul was in Galatia, the Galatians did him no wrong. They received him with joy, as one who spoke the very words of God, as a divine messenger, and this is amazing because Paul was not impressive in appearance. It's not clear what malady Paul had, but it was fairly noticeable. Usually in the ancient world being a promoter of a religion who had a serious illness would prevent your audience from accepting what you had to say. It showed that you were counterfeit. Not only did the Galatians not reject him, but they were willing to give them their right arm for him. A deep affectionate bond had developed between Paul and the Galatians, which is why Paul was so perplexed by their defection from his gospel. The cause of this was the Teachers.

The Teachers had gone into Galatia and undermined Paul's gospel by telling the Galatians that they had to become Jews to be full members of God's people. Thus they excluded the Galatians from the people of God.[1] Paul goes on the offensive here, stating that the motives of the Teachers weren't pure, they excluded the Galatians so that the Galatians might pursue them. The Teachers wanted a following and swept in upon the vulnerable Galatians. The Galatians thought that the Teachers were helping them, but Paul exposes their true motives.

Paul continues that he wasn't saying this motivated by jealousy, rather it is out of deep concern for the Galatians. Paul cares for them deeply, like a mother for her children. Paul had gone through much labor and anguish to see the Galatians come to know Christ. Now he had to go through it again, but this time from afar. Paul would have preferred not to have to deal with this from a distance, but he had to and so he had to be a bit on the harsh side. On top of attempting to drive a wedge between the Galatians and the Teachers, Paul also was trying to appeal emotionally to the sense of solidarity that the Galatians and Paul once had.


[1] Here I disagree with the NIV's addition of 'from us' to 'What they want is to alienate you.' 'From us' is not part of the Greek text and is an unnecessary addition. The NRSV is preferable at this point, 'They make much of you, but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you may make much of them.'


Popular posts from this blog

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Commentary Review: Daniel

In my opinion, Daniel is not the best covered Old Testament book as far as commentaries go. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon among Old Testament books. Though I've looked at them, I'm not going to review some of the older Evangelical Daniel commentaries (like e.g., Baldwin). They don't provide much that you can't get in either Longman or Lucas. If you're unfamiliar with the series that one or more of these commentaries are in check out my commentary series overview.

It was a very close call but my favorite commentary on Daniel is Goldingay's. While there were a few places where I disagreed with his interpretation, I found the commentary to be exemplary. If you're going to teach Daniel, especially the apocalyptic portions, you need a commentary that provides you with a lot of background material. Goldingay, while not as broad as Collins, certainly provides you with quite a bit. His exploration of the background to the apocalyptic symbolism is very helpfu…