APRIL 25, 2005
PAST. ALLRICH REJOUIS

To read the entire letter, please click on the link below.

• INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS

WHO WROTE GALATIANS?

The Epistle to the Galatians is one of the truly irrefutable genuine Pauline Writings1. Despite the discussion and questions raised about certain of the other Pauline letters, it appears as if there is a consensus on the authorship of this epistle. This understanding covers a wide spectrum from the most conservatives who do not question the authorship of the biblical books beyond what is written mostly in their opening verses or concluding ones to the most liberal ones. Even Baur understands Galatians2 to be written by Paul.

The authorship of Paul was accepted very early in the history of the church. It is not clear if Peter is referring to this writing in 2 Peter 3v15, but some of the Pauline writings were acknowledged as early as the time of Peter. Furthermore, one of the earliest individuals to accept this letter as genuine Pauline writing was Marcion. Although he was considered to be a heretic who based his false teachings on a personal understanding of certain Pauline teachings, he was a referral to the time of acceptance. Since he did most of his work around the year 140 C. E (second century A. D) it is apparent that Galatians was accepted to be a genuine Pauline text. He had a common point with his opponents for they also accepted this piece as the work of Paul as well. Vine made the following comment: "Among direct testimonies may be mentioned the list of books accepted by Marcion3, the heretic, circa A. D. 140; the epistle was also accepted by his orthodox opponents."4

There is a strong possibility for the churches of Galatia intended to receive this communication to have been founded by Paul. Some commentators support this theory so strongly that they accept certain circumstances to be the conditions that led to the establishment of these worship centers5. The language of the text points to a certain dynamics between the author and writer that presupposes that one introduced the other to the truth and through outside forces a rift has come into the knowledge shared, the relationship with each other and specially their understanding of the truth.

The form and style of the Epistle leans toward a Hellenistic letter6. If this fact is accepted, it would give strong arguments for Pauline authorship. The education and social context of Paul qualifies him to be in a position of writing such fine literary works. Although the religious background of the Apostle plays a very important role in the text, but his education and social understanding had a serious influence on the text as well.

It is not the form of the letter that points to Paul as the author, but the tone of the conservation tends to indicate a very intimate relationship between the writer and the readers. Looking closely at Luke's presentation of the relationship between the churches in this location and Paul, it appears as if he could be the sole person to have penned it.

 
There are two possibilities in determining why would Paul write such a letter. The first one is to demonstrate his frustration and concern about the spiritual state of the churches and the danger they are exposed to. He opens the letter with such reprimand that one might even question the source for such an authority on Christ's church. Vine believes that Paul wrote this letter while he was overtook by indignation, concern, etc.7
The other reason that might support Pauline is the Jewish background of the Apostle. Galatians is an epistle that deals and creates a lot of tension between the understandings of Christianity and Judaism. Considering Paul's background as a jew, self-professed pharisee, it is probable that he wrote this letter to correct certain views that he had come to term with through his conversion and understanding of Christ's mission. The tension that existed between the two faiths could be identified in Paul through his cultural or racial heritage. Being a jew who grew up in a Hellenistic society, it was clear that his understanding of God's salvation would be a stumble block for some. The crux of Paul's self identification is important to the realization of his background. He was a pharisee, educated under the tutelage of Gamaliel one of the greatest rabbis of his time. The historical understanding of this identification and the school of thought attached to this school can give us an indication of Paul's theological formation and the approaches made in several of his letters. When Paul presents his Jewish heritage and specially his pharisaic religious ties to the teaching of Gamaliel, he was defending his position and his rationale. The way Paul approached the Law tends to give a preference for the Hillel school of thought. Even though it was a very strict sect, but they left room for intellectual exercise to take place. If the Hillel view is taken alone one might have the impression of dealing with a harsh understanding or interpretation. Yet, comparing it with that of the Shamai school, it was moderate8. He was not affected by dementia, but he was well educated and had enough intellectual formation to question certain false teachings. Furthermore the openness and great reputation of Gamaliel was definitely a great help for Paul. Picirilli presents Gamaliel as a revered teacher. He states:
"Gamaliel, Paul's own teacher and grandson of Hillel, was an outstanding rabbi and headmaster. His name is famous in Jewish circles even to this day. He was apparently more tolerant and large hearted than we would normally expect of a pharisee. The reference to him in Acts 5:34-39 as a member of the Sanhedrin illustrates his attitude. He was honest, sincere, frank-known for his love of nature. He appreciated and used Greek authors and was an acknowledged expert in the mosaic law and the rabbinic-Talmud tradition."9

Nevertheless, the Pharisaic tradition fought to uphold the Law. It is clear that he was from a more moderate ideological understanding, but he remained a pharisee. Through self-presentation, Paul testified to his effort to enforce the law and protect it from violators. His mission consisted in bringing people to comply with the law. The main argument presented later by Paul against the sufficitiency of the Law makes him a prime candidate to write such a letter. Being exposed to a school where new ideas were not chastised but analyzed, He was apt to search the meanings of his beliefs. Convinced of God's grace that could solely satisfy the law, he was in a serious polemic from teachers of his old entourage. He was attempting to prove the accomplishments of the Old Testaments promises in the ministry and sacrifice of Jesus. George believes that Paul had a higher motif than just challenging the Law, and perhaps he was defending the accomplishment of the Law. He states:
"...when Paul became a Christian, he did not cease to be a Jew. What he did receive by revelation from the risen Christ was the true meaning of God's historic dealings with his ancient people. The Law, the covenant, the temple, the Old Testament sacrifices, the destiny of Israel, and indeed the fate of the world itself were now all illuminated in light of God's decisive intervention through the life, death and resurrection of his promised Messiah, Jesus."10

The polemic nature of the book is essential to the understanding of its message. Paul was from a very polemic society. It was not manifested only by the rift between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, but it was present even within the sect of the Pharisees. Paul as the author would attack the problem of the Galatian churches with a profound knowledge of the situation and how it should be approached for a better solution. The double nationality and the socio-cultural mixture of his environment would qualify Paul to present a more profound (solid) case than most other writers of the New Testament.