GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE. — One of the four major letters of St. Paul, addressed to the Churches of Galatia, deeply disturbed by Judaizing propaganda.
SUMMARY:
I. Occasion, addressees, and date of composition
II. Content
III. The errors of Galatia
IV. The authenticity of Paul in relation to the Epistle of Ramani.I. OCCASION, ADDRESSEES, AND DATE OF COMPOSITION
The Epistle to the Galatians is the most polemical of the Pauline letters, with a tone notably harsh, which sometimes reaches the level of insult (3:1), irony (4:21), and sarcasm (5:12). The adversaries are pursued in every position in an unrelenting manner. Even the part that is usually considered moral or practical is written under the influence of the controversy agitating those Churches.The Judaizing question, decisively overcome at the time, did not have a lasting impact on the life of Christianity.
The issue was whether to accept or reject the substance of Christianity, to preserve its character as a universal religion or to reduce it to a mere variation of Judaism, with its particularistic spirit that reserved for Israel the full right to call itself the "people of God," to the point that salvation brought by Christ could not be attained by those who did not bear in their flesh the mark of membership in that people. By accepting the demands of the Judaizers, a grave obstacle was placed in the way of the spread of the Gospel among the pagan world, which would have been even more reluctant to enter the Church if it had to pass through the vestibule of Mosaic law, submitting to circumcision and other legal observances. Furthermore, to accept circumcision as an indispensable means of salvation was, in practice, to declare the insufficiency of Christ’s saving work.
The Epistle to the Galatians is closely tied to the ministry of Paul and the events of the recipient community; hence, it cannot be understood unless it is situated within a precise historical moment of the Pauline correspondence.
The central problem of the addressees is hotly debated by scholars of every school and confession. From its solution depends, in part, that of the date of composition, the determination of the precise nature of the errors spread in Galatia by the pseudo-apostles, as well as the understanding of certain aspects of Paul’s fiery response.
The opening of the letter (1:2) indicates as addressees the "Churches of Galatia." But the term "Galatia" (v.) can be understood either ethnographically, as derived from the territory’s ethnic characteristics, or administratively, as the name of a Roman province. It seems certain that St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles adheres to the first rather than the second meaning. The ambiguity is especially present in the Epistle to the Galatians. It is true that the Galatia traversed by Paul during his second missionary journey (Acts 16) is the territory inhabited by the true Galatians, yet St. Luke tells us little about their evangelization and Paul’s subsequent visit (Acts 18:23), during which the first signs of the crisis must have emerged (Gal. 1:9). However, the laconic nature of Luke’s narrative in Acts should not surprise us. Paul himself seems to suggest (Gal. 4:13) that the evangelization of the Galatians was incidental, due to an illness that forced him to alter his intended plans (the impediment mentioned in Acts 16:6?).
The crux of the matter lies in the value that Paul himself gives to the terms "Galatia" and "Galatians." The "Churches of Galatia" (1:2) are, for him, those of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, founded during the first missionary journey (Acts 13:14–14:21) and revisited at the beginning of the second (Acts 13:36; 16:1), or communities established only during the second journey in the territories of Tavium, Ancyra, and Pessinunte, inhabited by the Gallic tribes. The solution is less straightforward than it may appear from the reading of authors who decisively favor one or the other of these two opinions (cf. G. Ricciotti, *Paolo Apostolo*, Rome 1946, p. 332).
The supporters of the view that the Epistle to the Galatians was addressed to the northern Galatian communities (the North Galatian theory, defended, to name only the most prominent, by J. B. Lightfoot, J. Knabenbauer, A. Loisy, M.-J. Lagrange, F. Prat, H. Lietzmann, D. Buzy, G. Ricciotti) base their argument on the fact that this destination was commonly accepted until about a century ago. However, this argument is not very strong, since the Fathers and ancient exegetes did not perceive the problem, conceiving of Galatia in their own time’s nomenclature and boundaries.
On the other hand, many of the arguments advanced by the proponents of the South Galatian theory (G. Perrot, W. M. Ramsay, Th. Zahn, V. WEBER, MAX, E. Le Camus, E. De Witt Burton, G. S. Duncan, F. Amiot) are not decisive, as the texts allow for a plausible explanation even in the opposing theory. For example, the alleged silence of Paul regarding the Council of Jerusalem and its apostolic decree, which would imply that the evangelization of Galatia and the crisis that followed shortly after must have occurred before that council, is not conclusive. Some (Buzy, p. 430) deny the validity of this argument, pointing to Gal. 2:1–10 as relating to the apostolic meeting in Jerusalem, while others (Amiot, pp. 29–32) interpret it as referring to the journey mentioned in Acts 11:30 (cf. 12:25). Moreover, Paul had no reason to mention it, since the apostolic letter, addressed to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23), did not address circumcision, which was the fundamental point of the anti-Pauline propaganda among the Galatians. The strongest arguments in favor of the North Galatian theory are based on Gal. 1:2 and 3:1. In the first of these passages, the letter is addressed to the "Churches of Galatia." Now, it is at least strange that, given the custom—even in official documents—of distinguishing the individual regions incorporated into the Roman province of Galatia by their proper names, Paul would have used the improper term to refer to the territories he had traversed during his first missionary journey, which Luke’s account mentions by their proper names.
Significant, however, is Gal. 3:1, where the addressees are addressed with the title of "Galatians" and the unflattering addition of "foolish." If "Galatia" could be used in the broad sense of the Roman province, it is not very likely that the Pisidians and Lycaonians would be called "Galatians." If the individual parts of the Roman province retained their own names, much more so did their inhabitants, who would not have felt particularly flattered to be called by the name of a barbarian tribe that had immigrated to the Asian territory relatively recently. Nor are the psychological considerations suggested, in part, by the epithet "foolish," used by Paul in the heat of controversy, unfounded. According to Caesar (*De bello Gallico*, IV, 5), the Gauls or Celts, to whose stock the tribes settled in Galatia belonged, were lovers of novelty, hasty and fickle, quick to believe the latest arrival—especially if in the guise of a philosopher—and to make grave decisions based on hearsay. The addressees of the Epistle to the Galatians had enthusiastically received Paul’s preaching, overcoming the repugnance that his illness at the time must have inspired in them, even to the point of offering to pluck out their eyes for him (4:13ff.). Then, with the same curiosity and fickleness of mind, they had listened to the new preachers and were on the verge of deserting to their side (1:6).
The divergence of opinions regarding the recipients is reflected in the determination of the date of composition, although the two questions are not, in themselves, interdependent. Indeed, even the South Galatian hypothesis could allow for a longer interval between Paul’s preaching and the survival of the Judaizers than is commonly thought. The “so soon” of 1:6 may be understood as referring to the unexpected ease with which the readers had yielded. To admit, under the South Galatian hypothesis, that everything precedes the Council of Jerusalem— in which case Galatians would be Paul’s first letter— one must regard the two visits of the Apostle (4:13; cf. 1:9) as corresponding to the outward and return journeys of his first missionary expedition to the regions of Pisidia and Lycaonia (Amiot, p. 40; cf. pp. 38-43). But this seems rather forced; hence, even among supporters of the South Galatian destination, others prefer to date the letter to the second apostolic journey, at the beginning of which Paul revisited the communities of Derbe and Lystra (Acts 16:1) and, in all probability, those of Antioch in Pisidia and Iconium. Even so, Galatians could still be Paul’s first letter.
For supporters of the North Galatian destination, Galatians could only have been written during the third missionary journey, at the beginning of which Paul visited the region of Galatia and Phrygia for the second time (Acts 18:23; cf. 16:6 and Gal 4:13).
The date of composition remains approximate under either hypothesis. In the South Galatian hypothesis, opinions differ: if Galatians precedes the Council of Jerusalem and follows the Antioch incident, it can only be dated to 49 (Amiot, p. 39 ff.); if, as in 4:13, it presupposes the visit made at the beginning of the second missionary journey, one may place it around 51-52, from Corinth. The advocates of the destination to Galatia proper are no more in agreement, some placing it in 53-54, from Ephesus (M.-J. Lagrange, M. Meinertz, E. Ruffini, *Chronologia Vet. et Novi Testamenti*, Rome 1924, p. 198; cf. H. Höpfl-B. Gut, *Introductiones speciales in Novum Test.*, 3rd ed., Naples-Rome 1949, p. 361), while others go as far as 56-57, also on account of the similarities linking Galatians to Romans (Buzy, p. 418).
II. CONTENT
After the prologue (1:1-10), brief and impassioned, which plunges the reader into the heart of the matter, Paul undertakes the defense of his apostolate, based on a series of positive facts ranging from his conversion to the Antioch incident (1:11-2:14). This is followed by the central section (2:15-5:12), commonly called the doctrinal part, which is a relentless series of arguments in defense of Christian freedom in relation to the Mosaic law. Finally, almost to remove any possibility of misunderstanding regarding the nature of this freedom, the letter closes with a series of practical exhortations (5:13-6:10). Yet one cannot conceal that this division is somewhat artificial, at odds with the spontaneity and fervor of the writing, which from beginning to end presents itself as inspired by a single great idea: the defense of Christian freedom in relation to the Mosaic law, which has already been surpassed.The prologue (1:1-10) immediately offers a salient theme of the letter: the defense of the apostolate and of the doctrine that came to Paul not from men but from God. Hence, at the outset, the origin of his apostolic dignity is stated; then, in the address and the greeting to the recipient communities, the idea of liberation from the present evil age through Christ the Redeemer is set forth, along with a brief doxology to the Father (vv. 3-5). There is no praise of these communities, but rather astonishment at seeing them so soon turned away from
The one Gospel, which is that preached to them by Paul, is the most decisive condemnation—without regard for whether it displeases men—of anyone who attempts to pervert the Gospel of Christ, be it Paul himself or an angel from heaven (vv. 6-10).
In defending his apostolic ministry (1:11-2:14), Paul begins with his own activity as a persecutor, well known to the Galatians (1:11-14). Converted by Christ and called to the apostolate among the Gentiles, he did not become a disciple of the Apostles who preceded him, but withdrew into a period of preparation, and only three years later did he meet with Peter and James in Jerusalem, remaining almost unknown to the Churches of Judea, which had only a vague report of his early apostolic labors in Syria and Cilicia (1:15-24). The most important visit to Jerusalem was a kind of quasi-official recognition, occurring only after fourteen years, in a meeting where St. Paul vigorously defended the freedom from the yoke of the Mosaic law in the interest of Gentile Christians, a freedom also affirmed by the fact of not imposing circumcision on a convert of pagan origin. The pillars of the Church acknowledged that Paul had been entrusted with the apostolate to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. Concern for the poor of the Judean communities was to be a tangible sign of this sincere agreement between the two spheres of action (2:1-9). But when, at Antioch, Peter, out of fear of those who had come from Jerusalem, adopted a conduct that practically denied the freedom sanctioned at Jerusalem, Paul opposed him firmly, reproaching him for inconsistency and drawing others into the observance of legal precepts from which he himself claimed exemption (2:11-14).
The discourse addressed to Peter passes imperceptibly from the particular episode to the formulation of the principle that God justifies by faith in Christ, apart from the works of the law. “For we ourselves,” says Paul, “have sought justification in faith. If, however, we are still sinners, it would follow that Christ is a minister of sin” (2:15-18). Instead, we have died to the law so as to live the life of Christ, who loved us and gave himself for us. If the law could justify, Christ would have died in vain (2:19 ff.).
The experience of the faithful themselves (3:1-5) and the testimony of Scripture regarding Abraham and his descendants (3:6-9) prove that justification comes through faith, not through the law. The law, rather, was a source of curse: a curse that Christ took upon himself, so that the blessing of Abraham might extend to all the nations (3:10-14). Moreover, the law could not annul the gratuitous promise made beforehand to Abraham (3:15-18). Through the law, which became an occasion of sin, men were to feel more strongly the need for the work of Christ (3:19-22): the law was a jailer (3:23); a pedagogue leading us to him (3:24 ff.). Through faith, which makes us children of God, and through Baptism, which clothes us in Christ, it abolishes every distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female: all are one in Christ and partake in the promises made to Abraham (3:26-29). The period of spiritual minority and servitude under the law is definitively closed by Christ, who has made us adopted children and heirs (4:1-7). How, then, can the readers wish to return to slavery? They who so eagerly welcomed Paul and his message! Do they not realize they are being made fools by a false zeal? (4:8-20). Let them rather learn the lesson that Scripture provides in the story of Hagar and Sarah; and let them not wish to become children of the slave woman, lest they forfeit their right to share in the inheritance of Isaac (4:21-31). Let them beware, therefore, of allowing the freedom won for them by Christ to be snatched away. To submit to circumcision would be to fall from grace: to burden themselves with the entire yoke of legal observances (5:1-5). Circumcision is of no further value, and whoever preaches it and corrupts the work of Christ will be punished (5:6-12).
The genuine Christian freedom does not exempt us from the slavery of the law only to subject us to that of the flesh: its concupiscences must be curbed so that the fruits of the spirit may abound. The genuine follower of Christ has crucified his own flesh and lives and acts according to the spirit (5:13–25). Let the faithful guard against vainglory, envy, and harshness toward those caught in fault, ever vigilant lest they themselves fall into temptation. Let them bear with one another and give generously to those who instruct them, remembering that each shall reap according as he has sown (5:26–6:10).
The epilogue is a postscript written in Paul’s own hand to authenticate the letter, and it underscores once more the irreducible opposition between his action and doctrine and that of his adversaries. He then bears in his own flesh, as it were to confirm his preaching, the stigmata of Christ (6:11–17). The final greeting has the terse brevity of the opening (6:18).
III. THE JUDAIZERS OF GALATIA
From the Epistle to the Galatians it appears that they preached and imposed, along with other Judaic practices, circumcision.
Ancient exegetes (e.g., St. Jerome, *In Epist. ad Gal.*, 5:4; PL 26, 424; St. Augustine, *Exp. Epist. ad Gal.*: PL 35, 2105 ff.) have had no doubt that such practices were regarded as necessary means to salvation, without which faith and baptism remained ineffective. These would have been the Judaizers commonly styled radical intransigents. That those in Galatia preached the observance of these things as a means conducing to the perfection of religious life but not necessary for salvation, as something proposed to the good will of neophytes but not imposed, has been asserted by some Antolocians and Catholics. Against this view cf. Lagrange, who has provided (*Épître aux Galates*, 3rd ed., Paris 1926, pp. xxix–LVIII; id., *Les judaïsants de l’Empire aux Grâces*, in *Revue biblique* 4 [1917], pp. 138–67) the most exhaustive demonstration of the radical intransigence of the Judaizers combated in the Epistle. The vigor with which Paul attacks the issue and his adversaries shows that a grave deformation—or rather perversion—of the Gospel was at stake, one leading to the fatal consequence of rendering Christ’s work useless. There are two different Gospels: better—he corrects himself at once—the Apostle says there is not two Gospels, for there is only one, but one attentive to the very substance of Christ’s Gospel (1:6 ff.). And the matter is so grave that he does not hesitate to invoke the unexpected anathema upon anyone who should set about such an enterprise, even under the absurd hypothesis that it were Paul himself or an angel from heaven (1:8 ff.).
A. Loisy, at first (*Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses* 7 [1921], pp. 76 ff.), acknowledged that the Epistle to the Galatians, like the two letters to the Corinthians, is a document throbbing with Pauline life; but a later critique (*La naissance du christianisme*, Paris 1933, p. 23 ff.) turned unfavorable to its authenticity, deeming it, in part, markedly posterior to the first century because of the too clear affirmation of Jesus’ divinity—a view that only gained ground in the late eleventh century.
Loisy’s voice has remained isolated (cf. M. Goguel, *Galates, Épître aux*, in *Dict. Enc. de la Bible* 1, p. 459); for the Epistle is known and used at the beginning of the second century by Ignatius of Antioch (*Ad Eph.* 16:1 and 18:1; *Ad Magnes.* 8:1; *Ad Rom.* 2:1; 7:2; *Ad Philadel.* 1:1; *Ad Polycarp.* 1:2) and by St. Polycarp (3:3; 5:1, 3; 9:2; 12:2). Throughout the second century quotations and explicit ascriptions to Paul multiply, aided even by Marcion’s edition, which placed the Epistle to the Galatians first among the Pauline letters (cf. Burton, p. xxviii ff.; Amiot, p. 11).
IV. PAULINE AUTHENTICITY AND RELATION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
The authenticity of the Epistle to the Galatians is now beyond dispute. Though the radicalism of B. Bauer and a few other representatives of the Dutch school (cf. Burton, p. LXX ff.) has called it in question, the Tübingen school (to remain within the non-Catholic field) contrived the theory of Paulineism versus Petrinism on the presupposition of the Epistle’s authenticity as a document of Paul’s intransigence in asserting emancipation from the law.
Internal features fully confirm the testimony of antiquity. Apart from the fact that a forger would scarcely have exposed so cruelly a grave crisis in these Pauline communities, as though it were a failure of Paul himself, only he could speak with such assurance of his authority as apostle and father.
The authenticity of the Epistle would be confirmed, if need be, by its remarkable affinities with Romans—not in tone or particular formulation, which are entirely different, but in ideas. The Epistle to the Galatians is the polemical anticipation of the ample, serene treatment in Romans. In the latter, however, the design has broadened: the new economy of grace is set forth in a synthetic and exhaustive vision and in a more positive form. Yet the soul, the master ideas, remain the same; hence the Epistle to the Galatians may be regarded as a sketch of Romans—a sketch that cannot have long preceded the fuller portrait drawn at Corinth during the relative calm of the winter 57–58. — See pl. CXXV.