New Testament Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS
Additional services for New

Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Is Paul Defending his Apostleship in Galatians?

Bernard Lategan
New Testament Studies / Volume 34 / Issue 03 / July 1988, pp 411 - 430
DOI: 10.1017/S002868850002018X, Published online: 05 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S002868850002018X

How to cite this article:
Bernard Lategan (1988). Is Paul Defending his Apostleship in Galatians?. New
Testament Studies, 34, pp 411-430 doi:10.1017/S002868850002018X
Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS, IP address: 147.142.186.54 on 06 Apr 2016

New Test. Stud. vol. 34,1988, pp. 411-430

BERNARD LATEGAN
IS PAUL DEFENDING HIS APOSTLESHIP IN GALATlANSr
THE FUNCTION OF GALATIANS 1.11-12 AND 2.1&-20
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PAUL'S ARGUMENT

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent research, the claim has been made that Paul's statements
about the law in Galatians are often misread from the perspective
of the post-reformation law/gospel debate.1 The thesis of this article
is that Galatians has also suffered from a different kind of misreading, that is a reading from a specific perspective of the Corinthian
correspondence and which mistakenly assumes that the main
issue in Galatians is a defense of Paul's apostolic authority. It will be
argued that the main focus is on the nature of Paul's gospel and,
therefore, on the theological basis on which it rests. For this purpose, a number of arguments will be presented relating to the
function of Gal 1. 1011 and 2. 20, both critical transitions in the
structure of the letter. These arguments are based on a pragmatic
analysis of the letter as a whole, which cannot be discussed here in
any detail. It should be stressed, however, that for the determining
of the rhetorical function of any subsection of the letter, an analysis
of the entire text as a communicative unity is essential. Therefore it
is necessary to explain certain methodological implications of the
approach which will be followed here.
2. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 The renewed interest in the rhetorical function of this letter is

largely due to the pioneering work of H.-D. Betz.2 Whether he
Short main paper presented at the 42nd General Meeting of SNTS in Gottingen on August
25,1987.
1
Cf. E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); J.
G. Dunn, "Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law', NTS 13 (1985) 527; H. Raisanen,
'Galatians 2.16 and Paul's Break with Judaism', NTS 31 (1985) 544; D. Moo, 'Paul and the
Law in the Last Ten years', SJTh 40 (1987) 287-307.
2
Cf. H.-D. Betz, 'The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians',
NTS 21 (1974/5) 353-79; 'In Defense of the Spirit: Paul's Letter to the Galatians as a

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

412

BERNARD LATEGAN

would like to take responsibility for the flood of rhetorical studies

which has since appeared, is another matter.1 Indeed, there is need
for caution here, lest rhetoric becomes a new catch-phrase and a
flag under which cargoes of the most diverse nature are put to sea.
At the same time, it should be realized that the renewed interest in
rhetorical studies in NT circles is stimulated from at least two
sources. The one is the rediscovery and re-evaluation of the
rhetoric of classical antiquity. The second stems from developments in modern literary theory and especially work relating to
the pragmatic dimension of texts. NT research can benefit from
both these approaches. A great deal of the confusion in rhetorical
studies stems from the failure to distinguish carefully between the
needs of the original readers and those of the present readers. Any
statement concerning the latter is dependent on an as clear as possible understanding of the text as intended for its original readers and, therefore, (in the case of Galatians) dependent on an adequate
grasp of the rhetorical techniques Paul is using in his historical
context. At the same time, the analysis of the text can never be restricted to the communication with the original readers and we
have to remind ourselves constantly that it is always a present
reader who reconstructs the 'original' meaning for the 'original'
reader. The interpreter should be informed by both these perspectives.
2.2 Very illuminating for our purpose is Betz's remark that Galatians, as a letter, is part of an ongoing communication process
which not only involves the original senders and addressees, but

Document of Early Christian Apologetics', Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism

and Early Christianity (ed. E. Schiissler-Fiorenza; Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame,
1967) 99-114; Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).
1
For a discussion of recent work on Galatians, cf. J. D. Hester, 'The Use and Influence of
Rhetoric in Galatians', ThZ 42 (1986) 386-408. Cf. also J. Smit, 'Paulus, de galaten en het
judai'sme. Een narratieve analyse van Galaten 1-2', TTh 25 (1985) 337-62; 'Redactie in de
brief aan de galaten. Retoriese analyse van Gal. 4,12-6,18', TTh 26 (1986) 113-44; H. Hubner, 'Der Galaterbrief und das Verhaltnis von antiker Rhetorik und Epistolographie',
ThLZ 109 (1984) 241-50; B. Standaert, 'La rhe"torique antique et l'e"pitre aux Galates', FV 84
(1985) 3340. Further: M. Bunker, Briefformular und rhetorische Disposition im 1. Korintherbrief (GThA 28; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck, 1983); C. Forbes, Comparison,
Self-praise
and Irony: Paul's Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric1, NTS 32 (1986) 130; W. Wuellner 'Greek Rhetoric and Pauline Argumentation', Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition: In honorem Robert M. Grant (ed. W. R.
Schoedel and R. L. Wilken; Paris: Beauchesne, 1979) 177-88; 'Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans', CBQ 38 (1976) 330-51; 'Where is Rhetorical Criticism Taking
Us?', CBQ 49 (1987) 448-63. For a brief discussion of the various reactions to his approach,
cf. H.-D. Betz, Der Galaterbrief, Ein Kommentar zum Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Gemeinden in Galatien (Miinchen: Kaiser, 1987) 14.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS

413

also the present readers.1 He himself therefore opens the question

of Paul's wider audience. It is the implication of this statement
which we want to pursue further. Betz, in fact, anticipates much of
what consequently has emerged from a reader-oriented approach
to NT texts. In an important article,2 Hartman discusses the issue
in more detail. The assumption of a wider audience has important
methodological implications for the interpretation of these letters,
as Hartman points out.3 Not only is the focus shifted from the
author's side of the communication to the recipient's, but the possibility of multiple receptions (the original letter situation, the first
rereading [e.g. Ephesus], the present reader), places further pressure on discovering the communicative thrust of the text. It is in this
context that insights from reception theory can render a useful
service to NT exegesis. In particular the concept of the 'implied
reader', as a literary construct, can be an important bridging
mechanism to plot the methodological transition from author to
recipient(s). Acknowledging the role of the reader sets in motion a
whole series of further methodological consequences, which cannot
be discussed extensively in this context. It will suffice if we note that
any reconstruction of the original real readers of biblical texts is
dependent on a prior encounter between the text and the present
reader in which the meaning potential of the text is actualized. Our
entrance to a first century text is via a twentieth century reading.
Once the critical function of the reading process has been acknowledged, biblical hermeneutics must sooner or later face up to the
challenges coming from the side of deconstruction. How this could
be done, is the subject for another study.
2.3 In trying to establish the pragmatic dimension of texts, i.e. how
they are used and what their intended effect is, the interest in the
reader and the phenomenon of reception can play an important
role. But it has also helped us to understand the role of the author
better and the way in which he communicates with his reader.
This has led to a redescription of the audience (or readership4), as

Betz, Galatians, 24. It is well-known that in several of his letter openings, Paul explicitly
addresses a wider audience, e.g. 1 Cor 1. 2; 2 Cor 1. 1; Rom 1. 7.
2
L. Hartman, 'On Reading Others' Letters', Christians among Jews and Gentiles. Essays
in Honor of Krister Stendahl on His Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. G. W. E. Nicklesburg and
G. W. MacRae; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 137-46.
3
Hartman, 'On Reading', 141. Cf. also B. C. Lategan, 'Current issues in the hermeneutical debate', Neotestamentica 18 (1984) 4.
4
On the relationship between written and oral communication, see notes 4 and 5 on page
415 below.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

414

BERNARD LATEGAN

those whom the author wishes to influence.1 In the first place the
reader, or audience, is a construction of the author and must be
recognized as such. That is why a writer can communicate with
readers whom he or she has never met or does not know personally, provided that the writer has a general idea of their situation,
their attitudes and their expectations. For the interpretation of
Galatians this is of particular significance, because in the intense
discussion of Paul's 'opponents' the tendency is always to identify
them directly with specific historical persons or groups.2 This does
not deny that they were persons of flesh and blood, but the exegete
should always be aware that such an historical identification depends on an intermediate step, that is, on a reconstruction of Paul's
construct of his audience. From Paul's statements, his arguments,
admonitions, curses and blessings we infer what would be convincing to his audience, what would sway them, what Paul supposed
would be reasonable to them, what common ground existed between them. In this way we are able to delineate the features of this
presupposed audience as a literary construct, which we then, as a
second step, can compare with what we know of the historical
persons involved and can attempt an historical identification, as far
as the evidence allows us to do so.
2.4 Signals to the reader operate on various levels of the text. For
the purpose of analysis, text linguistics usually distinguishes between the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels.3 The competent writer (and this certainly applies to the author of Galatians)
makes full use of the syntacto-semantic possibilities of language to
achieve the desired rhetorical effect. These rhetorical features may
be studied from different perspectives and for different purposes: to
identify the figures of speech employed in the text, to compare these
with what we know of first century rhetorical traditions, to determine the background and training of a specific author and so forth.
In the case of Galatians, the pragmatic intent of the text is undeniable, that is the way in which Paul is presupposing a reaction

Cf. W. Wuellner, 'Reading Romans in Context1 (Paper read in the SNTS Seminar on the
Role of the Reader, Gottingen 1987) 3; C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation (Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame, 1969) 19.
2
For an overview of the different methodological approaches used to identify Paul's
opponents, cf. K. Berger, 'Die Implizieten Gegner. Zur Methode des Erschliessens von
Gegnern in neutestamentlichen Texten', Kirche. Festschrift filr Gunther Bornkamm
zum 75. Geburtstag (Hrsg. D. Luhrmann und G. Strecker; Tubingen: Mohr, 1980) 373-400.
3
Cf. D. Hellholm, Das Visionenbuch des Hermas als Apokalypse I (CB 13:1; Lund:
Gleerup, 1980) 27-62.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS

415

from his audience, persuading them to adopt a certain set of beliefs,

a certain attitude, to follow a certain line of conduct.
2.5 The epistolary framework which Paul uses to achieve his rhetorical and pragmatic goals, presents us with a further complication. Epistolography and rhetoric should not be confused and the
relationship between them is in urgent need of further investigation and clarification.1 Here we are dealing with entities which
are not really comparable - the letter is a literary form, while
rhetoric has to do with the way in which language is used to be persuasive. In other words, rhetorical effect can be achieved by a
variety of strategies and devices, inter alia by using the letter form.
In Galatians we have the interesting situation that already in
the formal epistolary conventions, which serves as the external
bracket for the body of the letter, Paul has introduced certain
elements which have a clear rhetorical purpose. Betz refers to the
way in which the prescript is used to introduce topics which are to
be expanded later in the letter, giving evidence of a remarkable
unity of composition.2
2.6 Problems arise when rhetoric is restricted to the context of oral
delivery in a 'live' situation. No doubt rhetoric was first and foremost developed as an ars bene dicendi with an oral presentation as
final goal. Betz rightly shows that the sender of a letter cannot
make use of the range of rhetorical devices which becomes available only in the situation of the pronunciatio.3 The absence/
presence of the sender represents a special problem in epistolography.4 At the same time, as Ricoeur has shown,5 inscripturation
also has its advantages. Not only does it lend a certain durability to
the text, but it enables the communication to continue beyond its
immediate context, making it possible for Paul to reach a wider
audience. Moreover, there are good reasons for believing that
1
Cf. Betz, Galatians, 14; Hiibner, 'Epistolographie'; Bunker, Briefformular, 11-15, 76-80;
B. Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence. Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety
(Foundations and Facets; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 63-8; J. L. White, 'Literature in the
Framework of Ancient Epistolography', ANRW II. 25.2 (1984) 1733-51; N. R. Petersen,
'Prolegomena to a Reader-oriented Study of Paul's Letter to Rome' (Paper read in the SNTS
Seminar on the Role of the Reader, Gottingen, 1987) 9-14.
2
Betz, Galatians, 15 note 113.
3
Betz, Galatians, 24.
4
Cf. R. W. Funk, 'The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance', Christian History
and Interpretation: Studies presented to John Knox (ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule and
R. R. Niebuhr; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967) 249-68; Bunker, Briefformular,
25-6; H. Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400
n. Chr. (Helsinki: AnAcScFen, 1956) 38-42.
5
P. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth:
Texas Christian University, 1976).

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

416

BERNARD LATEGAN

Paul's letters were meant to be presented orally to their first

audiences. 1 Although the relationship between oral and written
communication is complex and still unclear in many respects, it
cannot be denied that rhetorical considerations can and do have a
decisive influence on the shaping of written texts. This is especially
true in the case of Galatians.
2.7 In the following discussion, the focus will be on the function of
the various rhetorical devices which Paul employs and the way
they are used to develop the theological argument in the first two
chapters of the letter. As far as the rhetorical structure is concerned, Betz's analysis will be followed in broad terms.2 At the same
time, some of his conclusions will be tested from a pragmatic perspective.

3. READING GALATIANS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE

OF APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY

3.1 To illustrate some aspects of a reader oriented approach to

Galatians, we take as our point of departure the widely held opinion
that the basic issue at stake in the letter is Paul's authority and
independence as an apostle. In view of the Corinthian correspondence it is understandable that such an idea could take root.3 But
the transference of the apostolic issue to Galatians has created
more confusion than clarity. Apostolic authority certainly is an
important theme in Pauline theology. The question is whether this
is the dominant issue in Galatians. The preoccupation with apostolic status is part of a long tradition which goes as far back as
Chrysostom 4 and was given further impetus by Lightfoot who,
1

Cf. Hartman, 'On Reading', 139; Hester, 'Rhetoric1, 387; R. W. Funk, Language, Hermeneutic and Word of God (New York: Harper and Row, 1966) 245.
2
In the introduction to the German edition of this commentary, Betz clarifies his position
on various of the issues raised in the subsequent discussion of his work, but concludes that
his basic approach and the necessity of a rhetorical analysis of the letter remains unchallenged. The choice between Galatians as an apologetic or a deliberative letter represents a
false alternative as the former does not exclude elements with a deliberative function. At
the same time, paraenesis can form part of an apologetic letter. Betz also discusses issues in
need of further investigation, e.g. the use of the example of Paul as an argumentative
device and the theological development of his thought- cf. Betz, Galaterbrief, 14.
3 I am indebted to Professor Carl Holladay for drawing my attention to other statements in
the Corinthian correspondence (quite apart from the apostleship issue) which might support
the thesis presented in this article and which will be the subject of a further investigation.
4
Cf. B. R. Gaventa, 'Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm', NT 28 (1986) 310 note
2 for bibliographical details.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS

417

already in his 1865 commentary, identified the 'name and office of

the apostle' as a special problem in Galatians.1 For the purpose of
this article, the study of Schiitz (in his otherwise very valuable
book) provides a good example of this approach. He rightly insists
that Paul's letters 'are to be understood against the background of
their specific occasion1.2 In the case of Galatians 1 and 2, Schiitz
considers this background to be polemical, rather than apologetical.
So far, so good. But then the restrictive move takes place - 'polemical' is taken to mean a defence of Paul's apostolic status. 3 The
problem with this emphasis on the person of Paul and his authority
becomes clear in Schiitz's subsequent analysis of Gal 1. 6-9. He has
to concede that the connection between the person of the apostle
and the gospel is not at all prominent in these verses. 'Here the
argument does not move from defending Paul's own claim of apostolic legitimacy to attacking those who have attacked him.'4 This
puzzling omission in terms of Schiitz's own thesis is explained by
referring to the narrative sections which follow later in these chapters and where Paul does feature prominently.5 But it is exactly the
function of these sections which is disputed. As far as the double
curse in Gal 1. 8-9 is concerned, Schiitz concludes correctly that
'the rhetorical device itself points up the precedence of the gospel
over the preacher',6 thereby further undermining his own thesis.7
3.2 The difficulties encountered by Schiitz are characteristic of
any interpretation of Gal 12 which assumes that the main issue
in these chapters is the defence of Paul's apostolic authority. The
fact remains that in 1.1-12, ctKoaxokoc, occurs only in 1. 1, while all
attention is focused on evayyeA-iov as the main topic (1. 6; 1. 7 [2x]; 1.
9; 1. 11 [2x]). In the letter as a whole, arcoaxotax; and derivatives
occur four times, et>ayyeXiov and derivatives fourteen times.8 This
is reason enough to try a different approach and to analyse the
argument from a reader's point of view that is, to look at the
1

J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1865) 92-101.
J. H. Schiitz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975) 3. For another good statement of the apostleship position, cf. K. Kertelge, 'Apokalypsis Jesou Christou (Gal 1, 12), Neues Testament und Kirche. Fur Rudolf Schnackenburg. (Hrsg. J. Gnilka; Freiburg: Herder 1974) 266-81, who nonetheless stresses the close
relationship between gospel and apostleship.
3
Schutz,Pau/,127.
4
Schtitz, PauZ, 118.
5
Schiitz, Paul, 123.
6
Schutz,/ > au/,121.
7
For a further critique of Schutz's position, cf. Hester, 'Rhetoric', 393 note 25.
8
anoazoXoc, and derivatives: 1. 1; 1. 17; 1. 19; 2. 8. eixxyyeXiov and derivatives: 1. 6; 1. 7; 1. 8
(2x); 1. 9; 1. 11 (2x); 1.16; 1. 23; 2. 2; 2. 5; 2. 7; 2.14; 4.13.
2

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

418

BERNARD LATEGAN

direct and indirect instructions for the reader incorporated in the

text. Prerequisite for such an undertaking is reading the letter as a
communicative whole.1 In the context of this article, it will not be
possible to repeat all the steps in such an analysis, which starts off
with a discourse analysis and then gathers readers' instructions on
different levels in order to establish the full pragmatic effect of the
text. We shall rather try to illustrate the results achieved by such
an analysis and for this purpose restrict ourselves to two crucial
transitions in Paul's argument, namely 1. 11-12 and 2. 19-20,
which form the key to the function of the narrative sections in
chapters 1 and 2 and their connection with the rest of the letter.

4. READING GALATIANS AS A COMMUNICATIVE WHOLE

4.1 The God-man tension in Gal 1-2

One of the most important results of a pragmatic analysis is
making the exegete aware of the tension between God and man
which dominates the first two chapters. Various scholars have
already drawn attention to Paul's preference for chiastic structures and antithetical reasoning.2 Bultmann has argued that the
apostle's theology reveals what may be called a binary structure
(two modes of existence - life before faith and life in faith).3 But
quite apart from these general features, Gal 1 and 2 reveal a
fundamental opposition between God and man which forms the
presupposition of Paul's whole argument. In the very first verse of
the letter, this contrast which occurs in various forms throughout
the letter, is announced in a double chiastic form: &v9pcbjtcov . . .
&v0po>7to\)/'lT|ao\) Xpiaxov . . . 9eoi). This feature has largely been
1

Cf. Funk, Language, 248; B. C. Lategan, 'Het motief van de dienst in Galaten 1 en 2', De
knechtsgestalte van Christus. Studies aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. H. N. Ridderbos (red.
H. H. Grosheide et al.\ Kampen: Kok, 1978) 76-80.
2 Cf. J. Jeremias, Abba. Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgesehichte
(Gbttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1966) 285-6; N. R. Petersen, 'Prolegomena', 23-5; W. Stengel,
'Biographisches und Idealbiographisches in Gal 1,11-2,14, Kontinuitdt und Einheit', Festschrift fur F. Mussner (Hrsg. P. G. Muller und W. Stengel; Freiburg: Herder, 1981) 128-9;
J. L. Martyn, 'Apocalyptic Antinomies in Paul's Letter to the Galatians', NTS 31 (1985)
410-24; D. Aune, Review of Betz, Galatians, RelStudRev 7 (1981) 325; G. Bergnyi, 'Gal 2,20:
a Pre-Pauline or a Pauline Text?', Biblica 65 (1984) 525-28; Smit, 'Paulus', 341. Cf.
especially H. Boers, 'The foundations of Paul's Thought: A Methodological Investigation',
paper read at the SBL Annual Meeting, November 24,1986 in Atlanta.
3
R. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (9. Aufl.; Tubingen: Mohr, 1984) 192.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS

419

neglected by exegetes. An actantial analysis confirms the importance of this contrast, which creates an element of tension right
through these chapters and which is only relieved in 2. 20.l In
his study of Pauline autobiography, Lyons is one of the few who
pays attention to this phenomenon. He discusses various forms of
Pauline antitheses, including the 'man-God1 contrast,2 and correctly stresses the relationship between 1.1 and 1.1112, but fails
to see the link with 2. 20 (which we shall discuss later).
4.2 The pivotal function of 1. 11-12 and the
significance of ov Kara avOpatnov

Galatians, like the Corinthian correspondence, reflects a very

intense communication situation, where different forces are at
work. Because of this, interpreters are often misled and understand the underlying tension between God and man as a tension
which primarily has to do with Paul's apostleship. Such an understanding is linked to various statements in this section, viz. 1.1; 1.
6-9; 1. 10 and 2. 20. However, the key passage to all these interpretations is 1.11-12, which calls for closer examination.
Betz correctly identifies these verses as a critical transition in the
whole of Paul's argument. 'The thesis is very concise, but it does
contain the whole basis upon which Paul's gospel, as well as his own
mission, and indeed his defense in the letter, rest.'3 He continues:
'The entire narratio is so designed that it makes the introductory
statement (1.11-12) credible.'4 A pragmatic analysis not only confirms the key function of 1.1112 within the first two chapters, but
also in the epistle as a whole.
It is, therefore, surprising that the basic statement in this key
passage has not received the attention it merits: to euayyeXiov . . .
OUK eaxvv Kara avBpamov.
The Kata avGpcojtov is a description of quality,5 which gives
a cryptic but fundamental characterization of the nature of the
1

Cf. Lategan, 'Motief , 81-2.

2 G. Lyons, Pauline Autobiography. Toward a New Understanding (SBLDS 73; Atlanta:
SBL, 1985) 146-64, esp. 152-6. Cf. T. Baarda, 'Openbaring - Traditie en Didache1, Zelfstandig geloven. Studies voor Jaap Firet (red. F. H. Kuiper, J. S. van Nijen en J. C. Schreuder; Kampen: Kok, 1987) 156, who also emphasizes the antithesis between God and man in
1.11-12.
3
Betz, Galatians, 56.
4
Betz, Galatians, 61.
5 Baarda, 'Openbaring', 155.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

420

BERNARD LATEGAN

gospel as preached by Paul.1 The gospel does not conform to human

criteria, does not take human considerations into account. It does
not function in a human way, does not honour human preferences.
This is what distinguishes it from the 'other gospel'. Paul is making
a profound theological statement which is of decisive importance
for the rest of his argument. That this is not the expression of an
anti-human attitude or a negative evaluation of human existence
as such, will become clear in our discussion of 2. 20. But it does
mean that the gospel implies an 'Umwertung aller Werten' - a
reversal of accepted norms as many of Jesus' parables so clearly
illustrate, where the first will be last, and the last first. For the
understanding of Gal 1. 1112 it is important to realize that the
cryptic formula ou Kaxcc av9pcorcov is connected to a whole web of
interrelated ideas which reaches to the heart of Paul's theology.2
Despite the qualifying force of xatd as an indication of quality or
norm, Gal 1. 11 is often associated with the origin of Paul's gospel3
and understood as expressing a negative attitude towards human
tradition. The reason for this tendency is to be found in the following verse, where Paul explains his initial statement (cf. the second
yd p in 12a) by saying:
ov>8e Y&P Y<D jcapa dvOpcoTiou jtapeXaPov auto
ouxe e8i8&x9nv
'Ir)aoO Xpurcou.

1
Cf. W. Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments
(Berlin: De Gruyter, 1971) 805: Korea often has adverbial force, describing the 'Art und
Weise, Beschaffenheit oder Eigentiimlichkeit einer Sache.'
2 In the introduction of his Galatian commentary, Betz has called attention to Paul's
frequent use of what he describes as theological 'abbreviations' - formula-like prepositional phrases which refer to theological doctrines. This phenomenon merits further
investigation and Betz's list (Galatians, 27-8) can be expanded to include the following:

uTtep tow auap-ricov (1. 4); -uno Kaxdpav (3. 10); Korea tcov enayyeXifiv (3. 21); UJIO auapxiav (3.
22); 81* ocaGeveiav xfj<; oapKOi; (4.13).

As the most likely origin of these phrases, Betz sees the oral transmission of Paul's theology {Galatians, 27). This abbreviated way of writing fits Paul's antithetical style of argumentation so well and is so compatible with the binary structure of his theology that, had
these phrases existed in the pre-pauline tradition, it is reasonable to assume that Paul
amplified and expanded their scope to the extent that they now characterize his letters. 2 Cor
3 provides a vivid example of how Paul uses these theological abbreviations to build up a
complex antithetical structure which describes the existence of man before faith and in faith
(cf. Bultmann, Theologie, 192).
oii Kata avGpconov in Gal 1. 11 is the theological equivalent of Kara odpKa which, in the
famous passage of 2 Cor 5. 16, forms the antipole of Kaxa jweuua and refers to the perspective
of the non-believer in contrast to the faith perspective. Cf. also Stengel, 'Idealbiographisches', 128-31.
3 Cf. Lyons, Autobiography, 155-6.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS

421

In his analysis of this section, Baarda argues that the two negative
clauses introduced by ot>8e and oine should be taken as a parenthesis and that the real contrast is to be found in l l a and 12c, that
is, between ot> Kara avOpomov and aXka 8i' a7ioKaA,-6\|/co<; Tr|aov
Xpiatou - providing us with a further example of the God(Christ)man contrast in these chapters.
We should be careful not to conclude too quickly from 1. 12 that
Paul is referring to the origin of his gospel in order to demonstrate
his independence from Jerusalem. The parenthesis finds its setting
in the contrast between man and Christ and describes the way in
which the gospel was received not in a normal human way, but
in accordance with its true nature, in a way which shuns customary procedures and expectations. When we try to interpret these
verses exclusively as referring to the origin of Paul's preaching and
consequently as a playing-down of his contacts with the Jerusalem
church and its leaders, we encounter problems with Paul's undeniable positive attitude towards their approval of his preaching.
Baarda 2 conclusively shows that neither Galatians, nor the other
pauline letters yield any evidence of a negative evaluation of the
(human) transmission and teaching of the gospel tradition.
4.2.1 Galatians 1. 1: But let us test this result against other statements in these chapters. First, we must consider 1. 1. It is significant that the formal reference to Paul's position as apostle in the
prescript is immediately qualified by the double contrast between
man and Christ/God (cf. 4.1 above). His apostleship and the way he
received it is an illustration of the unusual and unexpected way
God works - in accordance with the ot> mice avGpomov nature of
the gospel itself.3
4.2.2 Gal 1. 6-7: As far as these verses are concerned, we have
already referred to Schiitz's acknowledgement that, contrary to
what one would expect if apostleship was the main issue, the person
of Paul comes into the picture only at this stage of the introduction.4
But when he is mentioned, it is in a very brief and cursory fashion.
1

Baarda, 'Openbaring', 156. For this reason alone, the suggestion by Jeremias, Abba, 286
that Ttctpa avGpamou and Korea avGpconov provide the basis for dividing the letter in two
sections (1.13-2. 21 and 3.1-6.10), is doubtful.
2
Baarda, 'Openbaring1, 159-61. Cf. also J. D. G. Dunn, "The Relationship between Paul
and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2', NTS 28 (1982) 461, 465, 467-8, 470-^1; Smit,
'Paulus', 341.
3
Cf. Stengel, 'Idealbiographisches', 127-9. Cf. also Kertelge, 'Apokalypsis', 268 who
correctly points out the parallel between 1.1 and 1.11.
4
Schutz, Pau/, 117.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

422

BERNARD LATEGAN

The only reference is to 'him who called you' (xox> KaXeaavxoc,

v\ia.c). The attention is immediately shifted to the Galatians' own
experience of their conversion as a reminder of the unusual nature
of this occurrence and, subsequently, to the other gospel and the
gospel of Christ. This can hardly be considered as evidence of a preoccupation with himself or with his apostleship.
4.2.3 Gal 1. 8-9: The double curse in 1. 8-9 provides some further
pointers. Betz argues that the curse should be read in conjunction
with the blessing in 6.16,1 which makes the letter a 'magical letter'
and adds a divine dimension to his rhetorical efforts to persuade the
Galatians of the truth of his gospel. But these verses also have a
specific theological function in so far as they strengthen the God/
man contrast. Somebody who is willing to utter a divine curse over
those who differ from him, certainly is not acting in a very diplomatic way, or Kaxoc avGpamov. This is confirmed by the following
verse.
4.2.4 Gal 1. 10: The two rhetorical questions in verse 10 draw the
conclusion which Paul wants to achieve with his double curse.
There is a difference of opinion among exegetes concerning the
force of the participle TI in these questions. Lyons has argued extensively that the -q in 10a has disjunctive force, thereby contrasting
the pleasing of man or God as two alternative possibilities.2 Then
the interpretation would be: Paul is not trying to appeal/strive to
please men, but God. Betz, on the other hand, understands TI as a
copulative, expecting an emphatic denial to both questions 'the
'persuasion of God' must be interpreted as a 'polemical definition of
magic and religious quackery1.3 The implication of the rhetorical
question would then be that Paul is neither a man-, nor a Godpleaser.
From the perspective of the man-God contrast underlying these
chapters, it would be more natural to interpret TI in a disjunctive
sense, with the implication that Paul is not trying to please man,
but God. But even when the first TI is taken as a copulative (which
certainly is a possibility), the second clearly is meant to be disjunctive, marking the pleasing of man as a negative possibility. The real
contrast therefore lies in 10c, which is the direct opposite of being
Christ's slave. Whether the first -q in 10a is taken as disjunctive or
as copulative, the basic contrast with being a true servant of Christ
remains. The alternative, in case of a disjunctive interpretation, is a
1

Betz, Galatians, 25, 52-^1.

2 Lyons, Autobiography', 13644.
3
Betz, Galatians, 55.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS

423

'man-pleaser'; in case of a copulative interpretation, the alternative

is a manipulator (not a servant) of man and God. In this sense the
curse in verses 8 and 9, and its implication in 10, prepares the scene
for the decisive argument in verses 11-12.
4.2.5 Gal 1. 11-12 once again: Joop Smit has recently published a
number of rhetorical studies on Galatians, including a narrative
analysis of chapters 1 and 2.1 On the strength of his analysis, he has
serious doubts about the importance which commentators usually
attach to 1.1112 and concludes that the idea that chapters 1 and 2
are a further explanation of 1. 1112, is in need of serious reconsideration.2
The problems which Smit encounters can be traced back to a
basic assumption that Gal 1 and 2 are a defence of the origin of
Paul's gospel and his independence as an apostle.3 His own exegesis
shows that this assumption cannot be maintained with any degree
of confidence. Paul clearly is concerned with the contents of his
preaching. Therefore, Smit is quite right that Gal 1 and 2 cannot be
explained in terms of origin or the apostolic status of Paul. This
section serves a theological purpose, and that is to give an illustration of the premise of 1. 12 from real life. Baarda comes very
close to a correct formulation of this theological purpose when he
says that for Paul the gospel is the new perspective on the significance of the cross, which was revealed to him, but he does not
pursue the implications of this insight further.4 In view of these
considerations, it becomes all the more critical to establish the
rhetorical function of the narrative sections in these chapters.
4.2.6 The narrative sections in Gal 1-2: In his study on pauline
autobiography, Lyons gives special attention to the narrative
sections. He comes to the correct conclusion that 1. 13-2. 21 is
a substantiation 'of his claim in 1. 1112 concerning the nature
and origin of his gospel1.5 But his further conclusion, viz. that
Paul 'considers himself in some sense a representative or even an
1

J. Smit, "'Hoe kun je de heidenen verplichten als joden te leven?" Paulus en de torah
in Galatan 2,11-21', Bijdragen 46 (1985) 118-40; 'Redactie'; 'Paulus' (see note 1, page 412
above).
2
Smit, 'Paulus', 340-1.
3
Smit, 'Paulus', 340.
4
Baarda, 'Openbaring', 1612. In a remarkable procedure, Baarda adds emphasis to the
apostleship issue in the Galatian situation by following the suggestion of Rodrigues to use
fragments from the Pseudo-Clementine homilies as a co-text for the letter, where the
apostleship theme is prominent (162-3). Is it the absence of any strong emphasis on the
apostleship issue in Galatians which necesitates such a procedure?
5
Lyons, Autobiography, 171.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

424

BERNARD LATEGAN

embodiment of that gospel',1 should be treated with reservation. Gal

4. 12-20 certainly provides important arguments for the idea of an
imitatio Pauli, as Lyons himself points out.2 But it still remains a
question whether that is what lies behind the narrative sections in
Gal 1-2, as we shall see in our discussion of Gal 2. 20.
The problem perhaps lies in the concept of autobiography itself,
which leads Lyons, despite himself, to think primarily still in terms
of an historical reconstruction when dealing with the Galatian
material. In this way, the focus remains on the person of Paul, his
authority and independence, and not on the theological nature of
the gospel hence his efforts again to play down the prominence of
Paul.3
To prevent any misunderstanding on this point, it must be stated
very clearly that Gal 1-2 does, of course, offer important, if not the
most important historical data about Paul's life during this period.
It is and will remain a primary source for Paul's chronology and
for the reconstruction of NT history. Studies in this tradition by,
e.g., Robinson, Jewett, Ludemann and others are not only legitimate, but also essential for our discipline.4
What interests us here, is a different question. We are not talking
about the information these chapters can yield for reconstructing
the events of Paul's life. We are concentrating solely on the function these narrative sections have for the development of Paul's
argument.
In this respect, Betz's description of these sections in the letter as a
'statement of facts' with which the case is presented,5 may still be
the best way to characterize Paul's argumentative procedure here.
After 1. 1112, he is offering two 'case studies' to illustrate the
claim that the gospel is not Kcexa avGpcorcov. The use of narrative is
1

Lyons, Autobiography, 171.

Lyons, Autobiography, 164-70. Cf. also Betz, Galaterbrief, 3.
3 In a recent study ('Idealbiographisches1 - cf. note 2, page 418), Werner Stengel discusses
the important difference between 'Biographie' and 'Idealbiographie', with special
reference to the narrative sections in Gal 1 and 2. He shows that 'Idealbiographie' (in contrast to biography in the usual sense of the word) has to do with the public and official side of
the subject's life and especially those events which establish him in his public function. A
narration of these events is not to be understood as a chronological record of the subject's
life, but as a confirmation of his official position. Following Ludemann (Paulus, der Heidenapostel I [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck, 1980] 74), Stengel correctly understands the bibliographical references in Gal 1-2 as 'erzahlende Argumentation' in support of the claim
made in 1. 1112 ('Idealbiographisches1, 127).
4
Cf. J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM, 1976); R. Jewett, A
Chronology of Paul's Life (Philadelphia; Fortress, 1979); G. Ludemann, Heidenapostel.
5
Betz, Galatians, 19, 56.
2

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS

425

very suitable for this purpose. What Paul is talking about is not only
theory, but can be illustrated in real life. And the examples he
chooses do not come from his experience alone he draws them
from all possible sources. In fact, only the first has to do with Paul
exclusively the second actually is an illustration from Peter's life.
In the same way, he uses examples from the lives of Abraham,
Sarah, Moses and others in the rest of the letter.1
Betz prefers to describe Paul's defence of the gospel as a 'defense
of the Spirit'. He correctly observes that, although Paul's vocation
and apostolic office are intimately connected with his defence of the
gospel, this is not the main focus of the letter.2 Passages like 3. 2
provide good arguments for making the Spirit the all-encompassing term for the content and nature of the gospel. But what Betz
understands as the content of this gospel of the Spirit, correlates
exactly with the power of the phrase ox> KCITCC avGpcorcov. The Spirit
is, by definition, outside human control.3 The experience of salvation by Paul and the Galatians is a vivid illustration of this truth:
'what happened to the Galatians should never have happened'. By
'human' or 'normal standards' Paul's own conversion and his call
to apostleship, the official approval of his preaching by the authorities in Jerusalem, and the table-fellowship between Jewish
and gentile Christians are unthinkable. The unexpected, unusual
nature of the gospel does not only concern Paul's apostleship, but
the whole Christian community. The Christian experience was
consistent with God's ways, it was 'granted against human expectation, in disregard of human standards, without human merits by grace alone, as "new creation" (KOUVTI KXIOIC, 6. 15c)'.4 This description by Betz tallies exactly with what we have explained as the
real intent and content of ov KOCTOC avGpcorcov in 1.11.
4.2.7 To sum up: the misreading of Galatians from an apostleship
perspective obscures the communicative thrust of the letter. In the
1
For this reason, Hester is both right and wrong in understanding this section as an
egressus (J. D. Hester, 'The Rhetorical Structure of Galatians 1:11-2:14', JBL 103 [1984]
232). He is right in so far as Peter is the main figure in this section, not Paul. But he is
wrong in understanding the Peter-episode as a deviation or interruption of Paul's thought.
This episode forms an integral part of Paul's argument. In a further study entitled
'Placing the Blame: the Presence of the Epideictic in Galatians One and Two' (of which
Professor Hester kindly made a pre-publication draft available to me), he now understands
2. 11-14 as an expanded chreia which has the same function as the Jerusalem incident,
namely to illustrate Paul's character in defence of his gospel and the value system derived
from it.
2
Betz, Galatians, 28. Cf. also his essay 'In Defense' (cf. note 2, page 411 above).
3 For the following exposition, see Betz, Galatians, 29-30.
4
Betz, Galatians, 31.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

426

BERNARD LATEGAN

enfolding of the argument Paul's apostleship remains a secondary

issue - both in terms of the formal occurrence of the apostleship
theme and in terms of the substance of his argument. Without a
doubt his credibility and position as an apostle also are under severe
pressure, but that is a secondary consequence of the fact that the
gospel is under attack in the first place.
The contrast with Jerusalem cannot be explained in terms of differences about human tradition and divine revelation as channels
for gospel transmission or in terms of a leadership struggle. The
negative references to human involvement only make sense
against the backdrop of the God/man contrast in these chapters
and, more specifically, as a closer explanation of the fact that the
gospel is ov) Kara avGpomov. The nature of the gospel as contrary to
human expectations, not based on human effort, is first and foremost illustrated by Paul's conversion from persecutor to preacher
and his calling as apostle. That is also true of the conversion of the
Galatians, who were called as gentiles. The same theme occurs repeatedly in the rest of the letter. Sarah's and Abraham's attempts
to fulfil God's promise by their own efforts (even with the help of
Hagar), turn out to be in vain. God fulfils his promise on his own
terms and in his own time. 1. 12 forms an important link in the
theological network which stretches across the whole letter.

4.3 Gal 2. 19-20

Our contention that Paul is making a theological, not an historical
or bibliographical point in Gal 1-2,1 needs to be tested at one further
crucial point, namely 2. 19-20. In these verses the transition to
chapters 3 and 4 and the rest of the letter takes place. Throughout
the history of Galatian exegesis it has remained a puzzle how 1-2
fits in with the rest of the letter, if read from an apostleship
perspective. In most cases, it is seen as a diversion in which Paul
vents his personal feelings and defends his apostleship in a rather
exaggerated way, before he comes to his theological argument in 3
and 4, and his paraenesis in 5 and 6.2
If our suggestion about the theological function of 1-2 is valid, it
should be able to provide an acceptable answer to this problem. Let
us, therefore, briefly review the structure of the two chapters:
1
2

So correctly Gaventa, 'Galatians 1 and 2', 312.

Cf. Lategan, 'Motief for a fuller discussion of this problem.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS

1.112:
1.132.10:
2.11-16:
2. 17-21:

Introduction
Paul and the leaders
Paul and Peter
Conclusion

427

argument
narrative
narrative
argument

The two narrative sections are enclosed by two argumentative

sections, providing an introduction and conclusion. We have seen
that the introduction ends with the programmatic formulation in
1.11 of the thesis which forms the basis of Paul's whole exposition.
The two narrative sections provide proof for the statement of 1.11.
2. 17-21 draws the conclusion from these examples and provides
the transition to the rest of the letter. But exactly how is this
achieved? From a discourse analysis it becomes clear that the final
section in chapter 2 is linked with strong bonds both to the preceding and the following parts of the letter. We shall examine these
in turn.
First of all, the antithetical structure, which is so typical of the
preceding sections, is continued and even intensified. Bere"nyi
describes it as a verse which 'abounds in antitheses and paradoxes, like all the preceding passages'.1 The antithesis between God
and man, between the self and Christ, is indeed reaching breaking point. Paul's own persecution of the church, Peter's lapsus in
Antioch, the Galatians' fickleness in turning to another gospel all
these examples illustrate the strength of the resistance to God's
grace, how ingrained the notion of man is to live by his own terms.
In the normal course of things, the contrast between God and man
seems insurmountable. Therefore its resolution calls for extraordinary measures, which is in line with the unusual nature of the
gospel. The tension is resolved in a dramatic denouement: the selfexistence of man has first to come to an end. The self does not live
any more. This can be described in no other way but in the
metaphor of dying (2.19). It is important to note that, at this stage
of the argument (verse 18 onwards), a transition from the personal
T to a universal T has taken place.2 In terms of the theory of argumentation, Paul is addressing a universal audience. At the same
time, his argument is not wholly metaphoric or a-historical, it is
related to his own experience - and even more importantly - it has
its basis in the death of Christ on the cross. How exactly this connection is to be understood, is disputed. For Paul the beginning of
1

G. Bertnyi, 'Gal 2, 20', 527.

Cf. Betz, Galatians, 122: 'The paradigmatic "I"'; W. Schmithals, 'Judaisten in Galatia',
ZNW 74 (1983) 4; 'der "uberindividuelle" Ich1; Bergnyi, 'Gal. 2,20', 529.
2

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

428

BERNARD LATEGAN

the new existence of the believer coincides with Christ's death.

Being crucified with Christ, therefore, is not to be understood as a
reference to his conversion or to an existential experience of the
believer. Christ's representation on his behalf is so real that Paul
considers himself part of that event. This close association with
Christ has existential consequences for Paul and the individual
believer, as he will spell out in the rest of the letter, but that is a
secondary result flowing from the primary solidarity with the
Christ-event.
For our argument concerning 2. 20, it is important to note
that the focus on Christ is in line with our contention that Paul's
apostleship is a secondary issue which illustrates only the theological point he is making about the nature of the gospel. The orientation to Christ goes back to 1. 4,1 where Paul chooses - among
many other christological attributes - exactly the phrase which
sets the tone for the first two chapters and which anticipates what
he explains in 2. 20: Grace and peace come from God and Christ,
'. . . who gave himself because of our sins, in order that we may be
saved from the present evil dispensation, according to God's will'.
Berenyi argues extensively that the use of 8{8coni and Jtapoc8{8con.i
should be carefully distinguished in the NT. In combination with a
reflexive pronoun, the latter always has a negative connotation, in
the sense of a person 'delivered up to his enemies so that those
might treat him as they like'.2 She uses this argument to support
her thesis that Gal 2. 20 is not a pre-pauline formula, but a phrase
shaped by Paul himself. For the purposes of our argument, this is
not the issue. Whatever the difference between 8(8coni and Ttapoc8{8a>ni might be, the structural link between 1. 4 and 2. 20 can
hardly be denied.
It would appear then that 2. 20 is linked to Paul's preceding argument in two ways structurally and content-wise. Structurally,
the link is with 1. 4, which anticipates what is to follow in 2. 20 and
which already prepares the scene for the focus on Christ, not Paul,
that is, underlining the theological, rather than the biographical or
personal nature of Paul's argument.
Regarding content, the tension between God and man is sustained right through the argument up to 2. 20, where the dramatic
denouement takes place and where Paul can show that the unusual nature of the gospel implies that true human existence is
1
2

Cf. Schmithals, 'Judaisten1, 40.

BenSnyi, 'Gal. 2,20', 530.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS

429

possible only in co-operation and co-existence with God, not in

opposition and resistance to God.
If 2. 20 has clear links with the preceding part of the letter and
indeed highlights the integral and consistent nature of Paul's argument, how does it link up with what follows in 3-4 and 5-6?
Betz identifies verses 1920 as the expositio where Paul presents
the basic elements of his own theological position. These verses are
not only connected with preceding questions (as we have also
argued), but 'they are also to be elaborated in the rest of the letter'.1
He shows that Paul formulates his position in a rather unusual
way in the form of four statements:
19a: 1. Through (the) law I died to (the) law, in order that I might live for
God.
19b: 2. I have been crucified with Christ.
20a: 3. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.
20b: 4. What I now live (in) the flesh, I live in (the) faith in the Son of God
who loved me and gave himself up for me.

In the I'va-clause of the first statement (woe 0eo> f|aa>) Betz sees a
'telos formula1, being the quintessence of Paul's personal credo: "To
live for God" sums up Paul's concept of Christian existence, soteriology as well as ethics.'2 This very intriguing formulation of Betz is
in need of further clarification. It is our contention that the link
with the preceding and following sections of the letter is to be found
in Betz's fourth statement (20b).
We have already referred to Paul's extensive use of theological
'abbreviations1.3 These code-like formulations are important linking devices in his argument. He uses them to anticipate themes
which he is to elaborate later in the letter by dropping a hint in
shorthand style at an earlier stage. Then again, he refers back to
preceding discussions in the same abbreviated way. In order to
understand the cohesion of the letter and to follow the train of
Paul's argument, it is very important not to miss these hints
dropped at strategic points and to be aware of the references to both
preceding and subsequent discussions. Gal 2. 20 provides a good
example of this technique. The attributes used here to describe
Christ (xov oVyoutTiaavTOi; |ie ical 7tapa86vxoq eoruxov ujtep e\iov) not
only link 2. 20 with 1. 11-12 and 1. 4, but also anticipate the theological and ethical sections which follow in 34 and 56:
tou dyanricavTo^ ue is an abbreviated description of the ethical
1
2
3

Betz, Galatians, 121.

Betz, Galatians, 122.
Cf. note 2, page 420 above.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54

430

BERNARD LATEGAN

content of the gospel, as personified by Christ and his 'Verhalten',

and which forms the content of chapters 5 and 6.
KOU 7tapa56vxoq eoruxov vrcep e|xou describes the theological or
soteriological basis for the Christian existence and its ethical content, and is the subject matter of chapters 3 and 4.
Therefore, 2. 20 not only links 1-2 in an integrated way to 34
and 5-6, revealing an amazing unity of construction and content,
but appeals to Christ in a double way: his cross not only makes
the new existence of the believer soteriologically possible, but at the
same time demonstrates the ethical content of the gospel by the
style of this existence as selfless giving.
5. CONCLUSION

Far from focusing on Paul, his apostleship and authority, Galatians

has as subject the remarkable gospel which presupposes the 'Umwertung aller Werten', which does not devaluate human existence
or suppress the self, but, for the first time, sets humans free to discover the real nature of their existence and to realize their potential
as human beings. Both the experience of Paul and the Galatians
conform to the unexpected and liberating nature of the gospel and
it is this gospel ou Korea avGpcojcov to which he wants them to
return.

http://journals.cambridge.org

Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016

IP address: 147.142.186.54