GALATIANS, Epistle to the. - One of the four major letters of St. Paul, addressed to the Churches of Galatia, deeply disturbed by Judaizing propaganda.
I. OCCASION, ADDRESSEES AND DATE OF COMPOSITION
Galatians is the most polemical of the Pauline letters, with a markedly harsh tone that at times reaches insult (3:1), irony (4:2) and sarcasm (5:12). In it the adversaries are pursued implacably in every one of their positions. Even the part that is usually considered moral or practical is written under the influence of the controversy that was agitating those Churches.
The Judaizing question, decisively overcome at that time, had no sequel in the life of Christianity.
The issue was whether or not to accept the substance of Christianity, whether to preserve for it its character of a universal religion or to make of it a mere variation of Judaism, with that particularistic spirit that reserved to Israel the full right to be called "people of God," to the point that no one could attain the salvation brought by Christ who did not have in his own flesh the sign of aggregation to this people. In accepting the claims of the Judaizers, a most serious obstacle was placed in the way of the spread of the Gospel in the pagan world, which would have been even more reluctant to enter the Church if it had had to pass through the vestibule of Mosaism, submitting to circumcision and the other legal observances. Moreover, to accept circumcision as an indispensable means of salvation was equivalent to declaring, in practice, the insufficiency of Christ's saving work.
Galatians is closely bound to Paul's ministry and to the vicissitudes of the community addressed; hence it cannot be illuminated except by setting it within a precise historical moment of the Pauline correspondence.
The central problem of the addressees has been vigorously debated for about a century among exegetes of every school and every confession. On its solution depends, in part, the question 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 beginning of the letter (1:2) indicates as addressee the "Churches of Galatia." But the term "Galatia" (v.) can be understood either ethnographically, as derived by the territory from the ethnic characteristics of its inhabitants, or administratively, as the name of a Roman province. It seems certain that St. Luke in Acts adheres to the first rather than the second meaning. The ambiguity lies above all in Galatians. It is true that if the Galatia traversed by Paul according to Acts 16:8 (second missionary journey) is the territory inhabited by the true Galatians, St. Luke would tell us very little about their evangelization and about the Apostle's subsequent visit (Acts 18:23), during which the first signs of the crisis must have surfaced (Gal. 1:9). But the lacunose character of the narrative of Acts must not surprise us. Paul himself seems to want to insinuate (Gal. 4:13) that the evangelization of the Galatians was occasioned by an illness that would have forced him to modify his itinerary (the impediment of Acts 16:6-7).
The crux of the question 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 15:36; 16:1), or communities established only during the second journey in the territories of Tavium, Ancyra and Pessinus, inhabited by the Galatian tribes? The solution is less easy than it sometimes appears from the reading of authors who pronounce decisively for one or the other of these two opinions (cf. G. Ricciotti, Paolo Apostolo, Rome 1946, p. 132).
The supporters of the opinion according to which Galatians would have been addressed to the Galatian communities of the north (the North Galatian theory defended, to limit ourselves to the best known, by J. B. Lightfoot, J. Knabenbauer, A. Loisy, M.-J. Lagrange, F. Prat, H. Lietzmann, D. Buzy, G. Ricciotti) sometimes insist on the motive that such a destination was commonly held until about a century ago. The argument is not very strong, given that the Fathers and the ancient exegetes did not feel the problem, the former conceiving Galatia according to the nomenclature and delimitation of their own times.
On the other hand, even various of the arguments advanced by the supporters of the South Galatian theory (G. Perrot, W. M. Ramsay, Th. Zahn, V. Weber, E. Le Camus, E. De Witt Burton, G. S. Duncan, F. Amiot) are not decisive, since the texts allow a plausible explanation also under the opposite theory. Such is the case, for example, with the alleged silence of Paul on the conference of Jerusalem and on the related apostolic decree, for which one would have to suppose that the evangelization of Galatia and the crisis that followed at a short distance were prior to that conference. Meanwhile some (Buzy, p. 430) deny the foundation of the argumentation, alleging, as relating to the apostolic meeting of Jerusalem, Gal. 2:1-10, which others (Amiot, pp. 29-32), however, understand as referring to the journey mentioned in Acts 11:30 (cf. 12:25). Paul, moreover, had no interest in speaking of it, since the apostolic letter, besides being addressed to the communities of Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23), said nothing about circumcision, which was the fundamental article of the anti-Pauline propaganda among the Galatians. The most valid arguments in favor of the North Galatian theory are based on Gal. 1:2 and 3:1. In the first of these passages we have the address of the letter to the "Churches of Galatia." Now, it is at the very least strange that, given the custom, even of official documents, of distinguishing by their respective proper names the individual regions incorporated into the Roman province of Galatia, Paul should have used the improper term to indicate the territories traversed by him during the first missionary journey, which in Luke's account are mentioned by their proper names.
Significant, however, is Gal. 3:1, where the addressees are apostrophized with the title of "Galatians" and with the hardly flattering addition of "foolish." If "Galatia" could be used in the broad sense of Roman province, it is not very plausible that the Pisidians and Lycaonians should be called "Galatians." If the individual parts of the Roman province kept their own names, all the more did these remain with the inhabitants, who would not have felt excessively flattered at being called by the name of barbarian tribes that had immigrated into the Asian territory in a relatively recent era. Nor are the considerations of a psychological nature unfounded, suggested in part by the epithet of "foolish," used by Paul in the heat of polemic. 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, impetuous and fickle, ready to believe the latest arrival - especially if in the guise of a philosopher - and to take, on hearsay, the most serious decisions. The addressees of Galatians had welcomed Paul's preaching with enthusiasm, overcoming the repugnance that the illness from which he was then suffering must have engendered, ready indeed to tear out their eyes to make a gift of them to him (4:13 ff.). Then, with the same curiosity and mobility of spirit, they had listened to the new preachers and were on the point of passing over to their following (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. Even the south-Galatian hypothesis, in fact, could allow for a longer interval between Paul's preaching and the arrival of the Judaizers than is commonly thought. The "so soon" of 1:6 can be understood as referring to the unexpected ease with which the readers yielded. To admit, on the south-Galatian hypothesis, that everything is prior to the conference of Jerusalem — in which case G. would be the first letter of St. Paul — one must consider the two visits of the Apostle (4:13; cf. 1:9) as corresponding to the going and the return of the first missionary journey in the regions of Pisidia and Lycaonia (Amiot, p. 40; cf. pp. 38-43). But this seems rather forced; hence, even among the supporters of the south-Galatian destination, others prefer to date the letter from the second apostolic journey, at the beginning of which Paul and Silas visited again the communities of Derbe and Lystra (Acts 16:1) and, in all likelihood, also those of Antioch of Pisidia and Iconium. Even so, G. could be the first letter of St. Paul.
For the supporters of the north-Galatian destination, G. can only have been written during the third missionary journey, at the beginning of which Paul visited for the second time "the country of Galatia and Phrygia" (Acts 18:23; cf. 16:6 and Gal. 4:13).
The date of composition remains approximate on either hypothesis. On that of the south-Galatian destination opinions are divided: if G. is prior to the conference of Jerusalem and follows the incident of Antioch, one cannot think of anything but 49 (Amiot, p. 39 f.); if Gal. 4:13 presupposes the visit made at the beginning of the second missionary journey, one may hold for 51-52, from Corinth. No more in agreement are the advocates of the destination to Galatia properly so called, some pronouncing for 53-54, from Ephesus [M.]. Lagrange, M. Meinertz, E. Ruffini, Chronologia Vet. et Novi Testamenti, Rome 1924, p. 198; cf. H. Höpfl.-B. Gut, Introductio Spesialis in Novum Text., 3rd ed., Naples-Rome 1949, p. 361), others, instead, going down as far as 56-57, also by reason of the similarities that link G. to Romans (Buzy, p. 418).
II. CONTENT
After the prologue (1:1-10), brief and impassioned, which introduces the heart of the subject, Paul undertakes the defense of his apostolate, on the basis of a body of positive data, ranging from his conversion to the incident at Antioch (1:11-2:14). There follows the central part (2:15-5:12), commonly called the dogmatic part, which is a pressing series of arguments in defense of Christian freedom with respect to the Mosaic law. Finally, almost to remove any possibility of misunderstanding about the nature of this freedom, the letter closes with a body of practical exhortations (5:13-6:10). It cannot be concealed, however, that this division has something artificial about it, which contrasts with the spontaneity and the impetuosity of the writing; which presents itself, from beginning to end, as inspired by a single great idea: the defense of Christian freedom with respect to the Mosaic law, already superseded.
The prologue (1:1-10) immediately offers a salient motive of the writing: the defense of the apostolate and of the doctrine, which come to Paul not from men, but from God. At the head one reads, therefore, the origin of his apostolic dignity; there follows, in the address and the greeting of good wishes to the recipient communities, the idea of the liberation of the present evil age through the work of Christ the redeemer, and a brief doxology to the Father (2-5). No praise of these communities, but astonishment at seeing them so quickly turned away from the one Gospel, which is that preached to them by Paul, and the most decided condemnation — without concern for becoming displeasing to men — of anyone who attempts to subvert the Gospel of Christ, whether it be Paul himself or an angel from heaven (6-10).
For the defense of his apostolic ministry (1:11-2:14) Paul takes his start from his own action as a persecutor, which was well known to the Galatians (1:11-14). Converted by Christ and called to the apostolate among the Gentiles, he does not become a disciple of the Apostles who preceded him, but withdraws into a silence of preparation, and only three years later meets with Peter and with James at Jerusalem, remaining nevertheless almost unknown to the Churches of Judea, which had only a vague report of his first apostolic labors in Syria and in Cilicia (1:15-24). The more important visit to Jerusalem — a kind of almost official recognition — took place only after fourteen years, in a meeting in which St. Paul strenuously defended freedom from the yoke of the Mosaic law, in the interest of the Gentile Christians, a freedom affirmed also by the fact of withdrawing Titus, a pagan by origin, from circumcision. The "pillars" of the Church recognized that the apostolate among the Gentiles was entrusted to Paul, as that among the circumcised was to Peter. Concern for the poor of the Jewish communities was to be a tangible sign of this sincere agreement between the two fields of action (2:1-9). But when at Antioch Peter, for 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 the inconsistency of imposing on others legal observances from which he himself considered himself exempt (2:11-14).
The discourse addressed to Peter passes imperceptibly from the particular episode to the formulation of the principle that God justifies by virtue of faith in Christ, without the works of the law. Indeed, even we Jews — says Paul — have sought our justification in faith. But if we were nevertheless sinners, it would follow as an absurdity that Christ would be a minister of sin (2:15-18). Instead we have died to the law, in order to live the life of Christ who loved us and offered himself for us. If the law could justify, Christ would have died in vain (2:19 ff.).
The very experience of the faithful (3:1-5) and the testimony of Scripture in relation to Abraham and his descendants (3:6-9) prove that justification comes through faith, not through the law. The latter was rather a source of curse: a curse that Christ took upon himself, so that all the nations might share in the blessing of Abraham (3:10-14). On the other hand, the law could not invalidate the free promise made beforehand to Abraham (3:15-18). Through the law, which had become an occasion of sin, men were to feel more strongly the necessity of Christ's work (3:19-22): the law was a jailer (3:23); the pedagogue who was to lead us to him (3:24 f.). Through faith, which makes us children of God, and through Baptism, which clothes us in Christ, every distinction ceases between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female: all are united in Christ and share in the promises of Abraham (3:26-29). The period of spiritual minority and of servitude to the law is definitively closed through the work of Christ, who has made us adopted children and heirs (4:1-7). How then would the readers wish to return to slavery? They who welcome Paul and his message with such enthusiasm! And do they not realize that they are the sport of a false zeal? (4:8-20). Let them rather learn the lesson that Scripture provides concerning Hagar and Sarah; and let them not wish to become children of the slave woman, since they would lose the right to share in the inheritance of Isaac (4:21-31). Let them beware, therefore, of allowing the freedom won for Christ to be snatched from them. To be circumcised would be to fall from grace and to load oneself with the whole burden of legal observances (5:1-5). Circumcision no longer has any value, and whoever preaches it and spoils the work of Christ will be punished (5:6-12).
Genuine Christian freedom does not remove us from the slavery of the law in order to subject us to that of the flesh: the desires of the latter must be restrained, 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 beware of vainglory, of envy and of harshness toward one who is overtaken by sin, watching lest they in turn be tempted. Let them bear with one another and give generously also to the one who instructs them, remembering that each will reap according to what he has sown (5:26-6:10).
The epilogue is a post-scriptum written in Paul's own hand, to authenticate the letter, and underlines once again the irreducible opposition that exists between his action and doctrine and that of his adversaries. He, moreover, bears in his own flesh, almost as a confirmation of his preaching, the stigmata of Christ (6:11-17). The final wish has the nervous brevity of the beginning (6:18).
III. THE JUDAIZERS OF GALATIA
From Gal. it emerges that they preached and imposed circumcision, along with the other Jewish practices.
The 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.) did not doubt that such practices were considered as means necessary for salvation, without which Faith and Baptism remained ineffective. These would have been those Judaizers who are usually called intransigent or radical. That those of Galatia preached the observance of these things as a means that led to the perfection of religious life, but was not necessary for salvation, as something proposed to the good will of the neophytes but not imposed, has been affirmed by non-Catholics and Catholics. Against them cf. Lagrange, who has provided (Epitre aux Galates, 3rd ed., Paris 1926, pp. xxix-xxviii; id., Les judaisants de l'Epitre aux Galates, in Revue biblique, 14 [1917], pp. 138-67) the most exhaustive demonstration of the intransigent radicalism of the Judaizers combated in Gal. The energy with which Paul attacks the question and the adversaries makes it clear that this was a grave deformation, or rather perversion, of the Gospel, which led to the ruinous consequence of rendering Christ's work useless. These are two different Gospels: or rather - the Apostle immediately corrects himself - not two Gospels, for there is only one, but an attack on the very substance of the Gospel of Christ (1:6 f.). And the matter is so grave that he does not hesitate to have recourse to the anathema against anyone who dares to undertake such an enterprise, even in the absurd hypothesis that this person were Paul himself or an angel from heaven (1:8 f.).
Even A. Loisy, at first (Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuse, 7 [1921], p. 76 f.) acknowledged that Gal., like the two letters to the Corinthians, is a document throbbing with Pauline life; but a further critique of his (La naissance du christianisme, Paris 1933, p. 23 ff.) was unfavorable to the authenticity of Gal., which he considered, in part, notably later than the 1st century, on account of the too clear affirmation of the divinity of Jesus: this would be the fruit of a theological evolution that reached its final stage only in the advanced 2nd century.
Loisy's voice remained isolated (cf. M. Goguel, Galates, Epître aux, in Dict. Enc. de la Bible, I, p. 459); in fact Gal. is known and used at the beginning of the 2nd 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, 11; Ad Polycarp., 1, 2) and by St. Polycarp (3, 3; 5, 1, 3; 9, 2; 12, 2); during the 2nd century the citations and explicit attributions to Paul multiply, with the heretic Marcion also contributing to this, who of the Pauline letters accepted Gal. first of all (cf. Burton, p. LXXIII f.; Amiot, p. 11).
IV. PAULINE AUTHENTICITY AND RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
The authenticity of G. is by now undisputed. If the radicalism of B. Bauer and of some other representative of the Dutch school (cf. Burton, p. LXX ff.) went so far as to contest it, on the other hand the Tübingen school (to remain within the Protestant camp) devised the theory of Paulinism against the patrimony on the presupposition of the authenticity of G., as a document of Paul's intransigence in affirming emancipation from the law.
The internal characteristics fully confirm the testimony of antiquity. Besides, a forger would not have thought of so cruelly laying bare a serious crisis of these Pauline communities, almost a setback for Paul himself; only he could speak with such assurance and energy, strong in his authority as apostle and father.
The authenticity of Galatians would be confirmed, if need be, also by the very notable similarities with Romans, not in tone or in the particular framing of the problem, which are totally different, but in the ideas. Galatians is the polemical anticipation of the broad and serene treatment of Romans. But in the latter the design has been enlarged: the new economy of Grace is considered there in a synthetic and exhaustive vision and in a more positive form. The soul, however, and the master ideas are the same; whence Galatians can be considered a sketch of Romans; a sketch that cannot have preceded by much the picture traced at Corinth, in the relative calm of the winter of 57-58. - See plate CXXV.
Bibliography17 works
Teodorico da Castel San Pietro