Epistolary Prescript: Gospel Greetings (1:1–5)

Galatians 1:1–5

Although Paul’s letters remain almost our only source for reconstructing his opponents, one must be careful in reconstructing views of opponents from Paul’s letters; Paul sometimes even mocks their views by reducing them to absurd conclusions. When Paul disclaims particular behaviors, he is not always protesting opponents’ charges (e.g., probably not in 1 Thess. 2), but he probably is responding to such criticisms in Galatians and 2 Corinthians, where we know that he had challengers.

Most scholars thus contend that Paul’s frequent denials of negative points about him respond to and thus reveal some of his rivals’ complaints about him. Since his denials in 1 Thess. 2 do not require specific accusations, we cannot be confident that all his denials in Galatians do, but Paul’s repeated defensiveness throughout this letter suggests that many of them were responses to accusations made by rivals.

Many scholars offer other explanations for Paul’s opening, such as that Paul was defending his gospel, contrasting himself with his rivals, or offering a model for imitation. Such explanations are not, however, mutually exclusive. Certainly, autobiographic material could also function apologetically. Paul was defending his gospel more than himself (Gal. 1:8), but by challenging Paul’s full reliability his critics thereby also challenged the gospel message that Paul had received from the Lord (1:11–12, 16; cf. 2 Cor. 1:17–22).

In antiquity, narrative introductions characterized argumentation in general, as well as other genres. No less than Luke in Acts, Paul’s narrative here uses historical information to argue a case.

Epistolary Prescript: Gospel Greetings (1:1–5)

The letter’s opening contains the most essential elements characteristic of letter openings, although Paul here elaborates two of them in distinctive ways: author, addressee(s), and a salutation or blessing. Most letters lacked the elaborations that appear in some of Paul’s letters. Rhetorical critics treat the opening of Galatians as an exordium, but those who demur from employing this label can nevertheless readily recognize that the opening fulfills the standard function of any persuasive opening by preparing the audience for what follows.

1:1

1From: Paul, an agent commissioned neither from mere human beings nor through them, but instead through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from among the dead ones;

Paul’s name suggests that he is a Roman citizen, though Paul himself never draws attention to this status in other respects. In contrast to his earlier letters to the Thessalonians, in this period of ministry Paul begins emphasizing that he is an agent commissioned (ἀπόστολος, apostolos; 1:1), perhaps because his apostleship was often challenged (cf. 1 Cor. 9:2; 2 Cor. 3:1–3). The challenge may stem partly from the range of usage of the title in earliest Christianity. Some first-century writers apparently limit the title to the Twelve (Mark 3:14; 6:30); even Luke, for whom Paul was a hero, may skirt the semantic issue by granting Paul and Barnabas the title on only one occasion (in Galatia, Acts 14:4, 14).

Unlike the Twelve, Paul did not follow or receive a commission from Jesus during the latter’s public ministry. But some early Christian writers who recognize the Twelve as apostles also employ the designation more broadly (Rev. 2:2; 18:20; 21:14; Did. 11.3–6), as do Paul (Rom. 16:7; 1 Cor. 15:5–7; Gal. 1:19; 1 Thess. 2:7) and apparently some of his rivals (2 Cor. 11:5, 13; 12:11). If the agitators in Galatia claimed to be apostles, Paul’s opening credentials would also contrast his ministry with theirs (cf. 2 Cor. 3:1–2; 10:12–18; 11:22–33).

Paul may apply the label commissioned agent to those whom Christ authorizes in a special way for establishing new foundations of some sort (Rom. 15:20; 1 Cor. 3:10; cf. Eph. 2:20). Noting that the cognate verb ἀποστέλλω (apostellō, “send”) often translates the Hebrew šālaḥ in the Greek Scriptures, many scholars cite as a (limited) analogy the Jewish conception of the commissioned agent (a šalîaḥ) who accurately represents the sender. Sometimes Jewish sources treat as agents Moses, Aaron, or biblical prophets, since they spoke on God’s authority rather than their own.

His rivals apparently suggest that Paul’s apostleship or commission was merely from mere human beings or through them (Gal. 1:1); Paul responds to a related charge about his message in 1:11–12. Some suggest that his opponents envision his pre-Christian agency (Acts 9:2; 22:5; 26:10) or the mediation of Ananias (9:17), but it is more likely that they view him as a mere emissary of the Antioch church (11:30), and likeliest of all that they view him as having gotten his message from the Jerusalem apostles (cf. Gal. 1:17–20; 2:1–2, 6). In other words, they charge that he has at best a derivative, rather than foundational, apostolic authority.

Paul responds that, by contrast, he was authorized through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from among the dead ones (1:1). (Paul’s mention of Jesus Christ first might be because Jesus appeared to him; Acts 9:5; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8.) Jesus is raised literally “from among those who are dead,” an image that reinforces the connection between Jesus’s resurrection and that of the rest of the dead, thus portending their resurrection also (cf. 1 Cor. 15:12). Paul further elaborates on this direct commissioning in Gal. 1:15–16. Paul may also be contrasting his own direct authorization with his opponents’ lack of such.

That Paul did not receive his commission from mere human beings (lit., from a human) but through Jesus Christ and God the Father (1:1) suggests that Paul understands Jesus as more than human (though Paul does not deny Jesus’s humanity; 4:4). (Both earlier and more recent commentators offer this observation.) That Paul assumes a shared understanding with his audience that Jesus is somehow divine appears also in his letters’ opening greetings (see comment on 1:3).

1:2

2and from all the brothers and sisters who are with me. To: the assemblies of God’s people in Galatia.

As in 1:2, Paul often lists coauthors in his letters (1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; Philem. 1), sometimes apparently thereby simply sending special greetings from people whom the audience knew. We can only guess at whom Paul implies here, depending on when we date the letter. Barnabas, whom Galatian believers knew from Paul’s founding visit, was no longer with Paul. Silas, who was probably with Paul on his second visit (Acts 16:6), was with Paul temporarily in Corinth (Acts 18:5; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1), but he disappears from Acts afterward. Paul perhaps omits names of coworkers because those whom the Galatians knew are no longer with him.

At the same time, Paul mentions the support of fellow believers (all the brothers and sisters who are with me; Gal. 1:2) so the Galatians will understand that, though he was not commissioned by other mortals, many others stand with him. His rivals may try to marginalize him, citing alternative views in Jerusalem, but Paul shows that he is not isolated in his views.

The assemblies of God’s people in Galatia (Gal. 1:2) include multiple house churches in multiple cities. By this period, “Galatia” was the title of an entire province as well as the name of a smaller region dominated by ethnic Galatians, or Celts. In his letters, Paul normally designates regions by their provincial titles rather than ethnic ones (Rom. 15:19, 26; 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:5, 15, 19; 2 Cor. 1:8, 16; 2:13; 7:5; 8:1; 9:2; 11:9–10; Gal. 1:21; Phil. 4:15; 1 Thess. 1:7–8; 4:10). Elsewhere Paul may address both a province and its chief locale (2 Cor. 1:1), but he had planted churches in multiple cities in south Galatia (see Acts 13:52; 14:20–23), so here he names the province only. (In the introduction, I argue that Paul’s Galatian churches were in the province.) Unfortunately, southern Galatia lay directly on the route across the Taurus Mountains from Cilicia, making the Galatians a natural target for those who, already in Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23, 41), wanted to correct Paul’s gentile converts.

Although Paul could use phrases such as the assemblies of God’s people in Galatia elsewhere (1 Cor. 16:1), in his opening greetings he elsewhere sometimes designates such assemblies or churches by their relation to Christ (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1). Moreover, he so designates the churches of Judea just a few paragraphs later (assemblies . . . in Christ, Gal. 1:22). Believers in Galatia, unaware of Paul’s other letters, might not notice the difference, but it appears that Paul hesitated to designate them as God’s churches. Assemblies, or “churches” (in most translations), renders a Greek term (ἐκκλησία, ekklēsia) that could refer to any sort of assemblies, including civic ones; designating a church as “of God” specified what kind of assembly, linking the assembly more clearly to the people of God often so designated in the Greek version of the Law. Paul might still regard most of the Galatians as in Christ (1:11; 5:1–2, 11, 13; 6:1), but they have begun the process of apostasy (1:6; 4:9–11, 19–20; 5:4; cf. 3:1, 3–4).

1:3

3May you be blessed with God’s abundant generosity and well-being, from God, our Father, and the Lord, Jesus Christ,

Although the mention of generosity and well-being in the first part of Paul’s blessing is relevant to Paul’s interests in the letter (grace in 1:15; 2:9, 21; 5:4; 6:18; cf. Acts 13:43; 14:3; peace in Gal. 5:22; 6:16), it also appears in all the opening greetings attributed to him in the NT, as well as in 1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Pet. 1:2; 2 John 3; and Rev. 1:4. It adapts the standard Greek greeting χαίρειν (chairein; Acts 15:23; 23:26; James 1:1) as χάρις (charis, generosity or grace) and the Jewish greeting Well-being! or “Peace!” (e.g., Judg. 19:20). Some Jewish sources had already combined these before Christians did.

Jews used “Peace” as more than a greeting, however; it was a blessing, formally addressed to the recipient but implicitly functioning as a request (or at least hope) that God would bless the person with well-being (cf. Num. 6:26; Matt. 10:13; Luke 10:5). Here Paul offers what is sometimes called a “wish-prayer,” a prayer for the Galatians to receive well-being (peace) and God’s generosity (grace).

Prayers or wishes for a recipient’s well-being were extremely common in ancient letters (e.g., 3 John 2). What is striking is the deity whom Paul and other early Christian writers invoke in these blessings: God, our Father, and the Lord, Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:3). They regularly invoke Jesus as divine alongside the Father in the way that other works invoked deities such as Serapis. This practice certainly fits Paul’s Christology (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:6, where “God” and “Lord” echo the Shema; Phil. 2:6–11). (God’s Fatherhood is also significant in this letter, in Gal. 4:5–7, but is standard in Paul’s greetings and common in Jewish prayers.)

1:4

4who gave his life on behalf of our sins, so that he might deliver us from this present evil age, that being what our God and Father wanted.

Paul here elaborates Jesus’s gracious work in ways more specific to the message of this letter. Like speeches, Paul’s letters often introduce major themes up front. (They often introduce themes in the thanksgiving, but that is of course impossible here.) Jesus gave his life, an act of self-sacrificial love (2:20; cf. Eph. 5:2, 25). Jesus did so because of our sins, a malady common to all (Gal. 3:22). This language might derive from Isa. 53, as it most likely does in a text where Paul summarizes his (and his predecessors’) gospel according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1–4). (The resemblance to 1 Cor. 15 probably suggests that this language is common with Paul and that the Galatians have heard these words from Paul before.)

“For [ὑπέρ, huper] our sins” might evoke Isa. 53:5–6, 12 LXX (as in 1 Clem. 16.5, 7; cf. also 1 Clem. 16.14–15). This reason for Christ’s death also appears in 1 Cor. 15:3, where it happened “according to the Scriptures.”

“For [ὑπέρ, huper] sins” can mean simply “because of sins” (1 Kings 16:19; Pr. Man. 10), but is especially applicable to sin offerings (Ezek. 40:39; 43:22, 25; 44:29; 45:17, 22, 25; 46:20; Mic. 6:7; 1 Esd. 7:8; so also Barn. 7.3, 5), which is how a majority of commentators believe Paul uses “concerning [περί, peri] sin” in Rom. 8:3. Both Greeks and Greek-speaking Jews (see 2 Macc. 7:38; 8:3; 4 Macc. 6:27–29; 17:21–22) understood the principle of one righteous person’s unjust death atoning for many. Paul probably here articulates Jesus’s death in terms of what has come to be called “substitutionary atonement,” an idea articulated more clearly in some other places, including the similar and probably analogous phrasing in 1 Cor. 15:3. (The idea that Paul instead corrects a substitutionary idea here runs against the direct sense of the text; one need not choose between substitution and realized eschatology as if they were incompatible.)

He gave himself so that he might deliver us from this present evil age. The term translated in the NRSV as “set us free” usually means simply “deliver” (as in Acts 26:17), but deliverance often includes liberation (as in Exod. 3:8), and Paul speaks elsewhere in Galatians of freedom (Gal. 2:4; 5:1, 13) and redemption (deliverance or liberation; 3:13; 4:5). Although “present” can signify spatial as well as temporal nearness, most scholars emphasize that Paul here evokes the familiar Jewish expectation of two (or sometimes more) ages.

Especially in Judea and Galilee, many Jews believed that the present age was under the dominion of evil forces, but that God would exalt his people in the age to come. (The ages here reflect an eschatological worldview that scholars often designate apocalyptic, although it is clearly not limited to apocalypses.) Thus the Dead Sea Scrolls contrast the present age with the coming one; in the present age, Belial (Satan) runs loose even to deceive Israel (CD 4.12–13). God would bring to an end this age and deliver his people in the coming era, when present roles would be reversed.

Paul here declares that believers no longer belong to this age, an age characterized by the present world system (cf. Rom. 12:2; Eph. 2:2). In Galatians (5:5) and elsewhere Paul emphasizes that the Spirit provides believers a foretaste, a proleptic experience, of the coming age (1 Cor. 2:9–10; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5). In N. T. Wright’s words, “Eschatology has been inaugurated in a new and dramatic way. Paul believed that the new age had already arrived with the death and resurrection of the Messiah and the gift of the spirit.”

In Galatians, this means that believers should no longer serve old laws, principles, or powers (3:23–25; 4:1–5, 8–10); like Paul, they have died to the world because a new creation has come (6:14–15). In Paul’s theology, the experience of the Spirit gives believers a foretaste of the coming age even while they continue to bear witness in this one (Gal. 5:5; Rom. 8:23; 14:17; 1 Cor. 2:9–10; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5). Deliverance from evil here is noteworthy; Christ died not only to free us from sin’s penalty forensically (cf. Gal. 2:16; 3:11, 13) but also to liberate us from its dominion behaviorally (see 2:20; 5:16–25), a message that counters a common charge against Paul’s gospel (cf. 2:17; Rom. 3:8).

Fitting the theme of God’s rather than human initiative elsewhere in Galatians, Jesus’s sacrifice to deliver us from evil was what our God and Father wanted (1:4)—that is, it was (more literally) “according to [his] will.” Jewish sources value doing God’s will or submitting to his plan. Some felt that only the gift of divine wisdom enables mortals to discern his will. Stoics emphasized submitting to God’s will. Pauline literature elsewhere speaks of God’s will in terms of travel plans (Rom. 1:10; 15:32), lifestyle (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 6:6; Col. 1:9; 1 Thess. 4:3; 5:18), Paul’s calling (1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1), and God’s activity in other ways (2 Cor. 8:5). Here it applies to God’s plan in history (as in Eph. 1:5, 9, 11) and God’s sacrificially benevolent desire on behalf of his people, a clear sign of his costly, generous love (Gal. 2:20). This is the second time Paul has mentioned God as our Father in two verses (1:3–4), and he will revisit the theme in 4:5–7.

Distinctively Phrygian deities from the Galatian Christians’ preconversion past included the paired deities “Holy and Just.” Their religious past was morally rigorous. A God who loved and sacrificially redeemed those who trusted him, by contrast, was extraordinarily good news. It also could conflict with the obedience-centered covenant probably reflected by Paul’s adversaries in Galatia.

1:5

5Let all the honor for this be to him [that sacrificially generous God] forever and ever. Amen!

As in 1:5, many reverent Jews would pause to honor God at times, and Paul does so often in his letters (Rom. 1:25; 9:5; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3), including attributing to him the honor forever (Rom. 11:36; 16:27; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20). This praise is surely appropriate in Gal. 1:5: God acted sacrificially on our behalf, so he receives the eternal honor (or, in less dramatic Western terms, the credit). One might dispute whether the praise here is offered to the Father for his benevolent will or to the Son, who offers himself (1:4), but given their close linkage in 1:3, Paul may not be keen to separate them in any case. “Amen” was a common affirmation, especially for blessings, curses, and prayers. Hearers were to respond, “Amen,” showing agreement or confirmation.

. On principles for circumspect mirror-reading Paul’s letters, see Barclay, “Mirror-Reading”; Sumney, Opponents.

. Malherbe, “Gentle.”

. See, e.g., Vos, “Argumentation”; Sanders, Paul, 183–84. For one earlier survey of views regarding Paul’s opponents in Corinth, see Georgi, Opponents, 1–9; more recently, Thrall, Corinthians, 926–42; Savage, Power, 3–12; Kreitzer, Corinthians, 71–82; most fully, Sumney, Opponents, 15–67.

. E.g., Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 1:1; Fee, Galatians, 14.

. Against such an idea in 1 Thessalonians, see Malherbe, “Gentle,” 215.

. Hietanen, Argumentation, 185.

. Lyons (Autobiography, 170) makes a case for Paul here “as an ideal representative of the gospel . . . comparable to the philosopher’s claim to be an embodiment of his philosophy.” Verseput (“Mission”) contends that Paul could argue for the gentile mission’s independence from the Jewish mission (cf. 2:7–8) without first being challenged on this point. Koptak (“Identification”) argues that Paul invites hearers to identify with him and his mission. For a paradigmatic model as well as apologetic, see Wiarda, “Plot.”

. See, e.g., Josephus, Life 336–67; Lamour, “Organisation”; Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 41–42, 73–76; Rodgers, “Justice,” 185. On apologetic historiography more generally, see Sterling, Historiography; for apologetic elements in biographies, see, e.g., Momigliano, Development, 52–53; Feldman, Portrayal, 12; Burridge, Gospels, 145–47, 180–83.

. Kennedy, Interpretation, 145, on rhetoric.

. E.g., Rev. 1:13–20; Fronto, Amic. 1.1–2; older covenants in Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 58–60; Kline, Treaty, 18; Weinfeld, “Covenant Making.”

. Hall (“Inference,” 320), concluding that, with respect to historical information, “neither source deserves markedly to outrank the other.”

. Aune, Environment, 184; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 207n45.

. E.g., Betz, Galatians, 44–45; cf. Witherington, Grace, 79–80, on Gal. 1:6–10.

. Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436a.33–39; Polybius, Hist. 11.1.4–5; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 19; Lysias 24; Cicero, Or. Brut. 40.137; Virgil, Aen. 1.1–6; Aulus Gellius, Att. pref. 25; Lucian, Hist. 53; Soranus, Gynec. 1.1.3; 2.5.9 (25.78); Hippolytus, Ref. bk. 1 proem.

. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 2:2018–22; 3:2523–24.

. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.12.4.

. See discussion of these rivals in Taylor, “Identity,” 99–127, esp. 122–23. For early Christianity’s broad use of “apostle,” see further Lightfoot, Galatians, 92–101.

. Cf. Cassiodorus, Summ. Gal. 1.1.1; Brinsmead, Galatians, 93.

. For one attempt to synthesize some of the NT data, see Keener, Gift, 128–30.

. See esp. m. Ber. 5:5; the connection appears at least as early as Jerome. In Galatians, e.g., Matera, Galatians, 37; Ngewa, Galatians, 6; Buscemi, Lettera, 17; de Boer, Galatians, 21. For fuller discussion, see Keener, John, 1:310–15.

. Mek. Pisha 1.87 (Lauterbach, 1:8); Sipra Behuq. pq. 13.277.1.13–14; Sipra Sav Mek. d. 98.9.6.

. Sipre Deut. 5.1.1; 19.1.1; 25.5.1.

. The former expression literally means simply “from human beings,” often as opposed to divine action (see Philo, Abraham 186, 189; Joseph 71; Spec. Laws 2.27–28, 253); the latter, “through a human being,” sometimes as opposed to God (Philo, Joseph 99). The repetition of “human” in different Greek cases here resembles rhetorical polyptoton (Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 580), on which, cf. Quintilian, Inst. 9.3.37; Anderson, Glossary, 103; Rowe, “Style,” 132–33; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 86.

. With, e.g., Jerome, Comm. Gal. 1.1.1; Dunn, Galatians, 25–26; Schreiner, Galatians, 74; Ngewa, Galatians, 6; Sanders, Paul, 477–78.

. Bruno the Carthusian, prologue to his commentary on Galatians (Levy, 133); Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 1:12. Even in Acts, however, Paul comprehends Jesus’s identity before Ananias’s arrival (Acts 9:4–5; 22:7–8).

. Early Christians sometimes used “apostle” simply for commissioned agents of churches, as in 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25.

. A popular early Christian way of speaking of the Father; see Col. 2:12; 1 Pet. 1:21; Polycarp, Phil. 2.2; 12.2; cf. Acts 2:24, 32; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30; Rom. 8:34; 10:9; 1 Cor. 15:15; Eph. 1:20. For the God “who resurrects,” fitting the Amidah, see, e.g., t. Ber. 6:6; y. Ber. 4:2; Gen. Rab. 39:11; cf. 1 Sam. 2:6; 4Q521 f7+5.2.6.

. So Fee, Galatians, 14.

. Cf. Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 1:1. Witherington (Grace, 73) cites those “from James”; but were they James’s agents?

. E.g., Wolfgang Musculus, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 1:1; Rudolf Gwalther, Serm. Gal., on Gal. 1:1 (Bray).

. E.g., de Boer, Galatians, 24; Oakes, Galatians, 38.

. See, e.g., Cicero, Fam. 16.1.title; 16.3.title; 16.4.title; 16.5.title; 16.6.title; 16.9.title; 16.11.1.

. With, e.g., Hays, “Galatians,” 202.

. With, e.g., Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 1.1–3; Marius Victorinus, Ep. Gal. 1.1.1; Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 1:2; Erasmus Sarcerius, Ann. Gal., on Gal. 1:2; Rudolf Gwalther, Serm. Gal., on Gal. 1:2; Matera, Galatians, 38; Dunn, Galatians, 29; de Boer, Galatians, 25; deSilva, Readings, 59.

. Ramsay (Galatians, 241–42) suggests that Paul here invokes the support of the Antioch church, the Galatians’ mother church.

. Le Cornu (Galatians, lxix, 2) thus helpfully compares encyclical letters in antiquity. See further Rev. 1:4; cf. Col. 4:16; Mart. Pol. 20.1; Aune, Environment, 180.

. Even often outside opening greetings, see Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 10:32; 11:16, 22; 14:33; 15:9; 1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:4; cf. 1 Tim. 3:5, 15. An exception is Philem. 2.

. See also Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 1.2; Das, Galatians, 80.

. Also 1 Clem. 1; Ignatius, Smyrn. 12.2.

. 2 Macc. 1:1; cf. 2 Bar. 78:2.

. Wiles, Prayers, 25–27, 71. For examples of such blessings grammatically directed to the hearer but implicitly to God, see 1QS 2.4, 9; Let. Aris. 185; ʾAbot R. Nat. 8A.

. E.g., P.Cair.Zen. 59060.1; P.Oxy. 292; P.Lond. 42; P.Giss. 80.13; CPJ 1:244–45, §132; Cicero, Fam. 14.8.1; Seneca Y., Lucil. 10.4; Fronto, M. Caes. 5.25 (40); Ant. imp. 1.2.1; 2.4; Philostratus, Apoll. ep. 48; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.4.79; Let. Aris. 35; 2 Macc. 9:19; 3 Macc. 7:1–2, 9. Cf., further, Kim, Letter of Recommendation, 15–16, 25–34; Stowers, Letter Writing, 20, 74; Aune, Environment, 163; Weima, Endings, 34–39. In verbal greetings, see Lucian, Slip 1, 5–7; Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 69.18.

. Noted also by Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 1:3.

. On early veneration of Jesus, see, e.g., Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ; Loke, Origins.

. E.g., m. Soṭah 9:15; t. Ber. 3:14; t. B. Qam. 7:6; t. Ḥag. 2:1; t. Peʾah 4:21; Sipra Qed. pq. 9.207.2.13; Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.15; Sipre Deut. 352.1.2; Goshen-Gottstein, “God the Father”; Keener, Acts, 3:2661–64; on God as Father in Jewish sources, see Chen, Father, 73–111; Mengestu, God as Father, 128–58; in Paul, 159–203.

. See deSilva, Readings, 60; esp. Hays, “Poiēsis,” 201.

. Cf. Cook, “Prescript.”

. With, e.g., Fee, Galatians, 19; Schreiner, Galatians, 76n19. Das (Stories, 232–36) deems the allusion possible but uncertain.

. Gathercole, Substitution, 55–79, esp. 61–69.

. With de Boer, Galatians, 29. For similarities and differences between Gal. 1:4 and 1 Cor. 15:3, see De Saeger, “Sünden.” For pre-Pauline soteriology, see Sumney, Steward, 70–95. Many or most scholars see pre-Pauline language in 1 Cor. 15:3–8 and some also find it in Gal. 1:4 (excessively, e.g., Martyn), though others are skeptical (e.g., Schreiner, Moo).

. Noting the frequent LXX usage; Dunn, Romans, 1:422; Wright, People of God, 220–25; Wright, Faithfulness, 897–98; Hays, Conversion, 182; Moo, Romans, 480; Schreiner, Romans, 403. For alternative views, see, e.g., Breytenbach, “Vertaling”; Talbert, Romans, 204.

. With de Boer, Galatians, 30n41; cf. Haacker, Theology, 133. For detailed and esp. Greek background, see Hengel, Atonement (e.g., 28); for self-sacrifice for country, cf., e.g., Justin, Epit. 2.6.21. For Anatolian deities’ demands for confession and propitiation, see Niang, Faith, 57–63.

. Oakes, Galatians, 40. See the more detailed case for this view in Paul in Gathercole, Substitution; in early Judaism, see Kim, “Hellenistic Thought”; Kim, “Atonement,” esp. 143–45; Kim, “Targum Isaiah 53,” esp. 97–98. Ancient Christians understood this as a ransom to the devil (e.g., Ambrosiaster, Comm. Gal. 1.4.1; Comm. Rom. 3.24), a view rarely advocated today. Despite their diversity, varied early Christian approaches to Jesus’s death concurred that God used it for humanity’s salvation (Schröter, “Heilsbedeutung”).

. See again Gathercole, Substitution, 55–79.

. See Gathercole, Substitution, 42–47 (and cf. further 48–53), against Martyn.

. In Wis. 10:1, Wisdom “rescued” Adam from his transgression, apparently from promised death.

. Grindheim, “Salvation Territory,” 93–94. But note the clearly temporal use of “present” in Rom. 8:38; 1 Cor. 3:22; 7:26 (also Heb. 9:9; Ignatius, Eph. 11.1; Barn. 1.7; 5.3; 17.2; probably corresponding to the present era in Barn. 4.1); and “age” in 1 Cor. 2:6–8; 10:11; Eph. 1:21; 2:7; 3:9; Titus 2:12; and normally in the NT; cf. the similar construction of “from” with “age” in John 9:32; Josephus, J.W. 3.374; 5.442; Ag. Ap. 2.128. Galatians often reiterates the theme of time; see Still, “Fullness,” 242.

. E.g., Burton, Galatians, 432–33; Davies, Paul, 36; Schoeps, Paul, 107; Dunn, Galatians, 36; Lyons, Galatians, 48, 53; Cook, “Prescript.”

. E.g., Matera, Galatians, 43; Hansen, Galatians, 34; cf. the sources on which Burton, Galatians, 426–31 (esp. 427–29) focuses. There is, however, no inherent contradiction between the cosmological and forensic applications of the two ages, weakening the value of de Boer’s somewhat subtle distinction (Galatians, 30–32, based on substantial research, yet himself recognizing [32] that they overlap in the Qumran scrolls); cf. Novello, “Nature.”

. For the present age as evil, see, e.g., CD 4.8, 10, 12; 6.10, 14; 12.23; 14.19; 15.7, 10; 1QS 1.18; 2.19; 4.18; 1QpHab 5.7–8; 4Q271 f2.12; 4Q301 f3ab.8; 4Q510 f1.6–8; 4 Ezra 4:27.

. See, e.g., CD 6.10–11; 1QS 3.23; 4.20; 4Q171 f1–2.ii.6–10; 4Q215a f1.ii.4–6; 4Q301 f3ab.8; 4 Ezra 4:35–37; 6:7–9, 20; 7:31, 47, 50, 113–14; 8:1, 52; 2 Bar. 15:8; t. Ber. 6:21; t. Peʾah 1:2–3; Sipre Num. 115.5.7; Sipre Deut. 29.2.3; 31.4.1; 32.5.10; 34.4.3; 48.7.1.

. See, e.g., 1QM 14.4–7, 10–15; 4Q215a f1.ii.3–6; 1 En. 46:5–6; 96:8; 104:2; Sib. Or. 3.350–55; 2 Bar. 83:5; t. Taʿan. 3:14; Sipra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.8; Sipre Deut. 307.3.2–3.

. Cf. Keener, Mind, 153–55, 176–80.

. Wright, Faithfulness, 930 (although Wright objects to characterizing Galatians as “apocalyptic”).

. On this theme, cf., e.g., Butticaz, “Culture,” 112–13.

. E.g., Jub. 21:2–3, 23; CD 3.11, 15–16; T. Iss. 4:3; m. ʾAbot 5:20 MSS; Sipre Num. 42.1.2; Sipre Deut. 47.2.9; 306.28.2; Israel faces judgments in the present when they disobey God’s will (Sipre Deut. 40.4.1; 40.6.1; 305.2.1; cf. 114.1.1; 118.1.1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 34A).

. Wis. 9:13 in context (esp. with 9:17).

. Sorabji, Emotion, 219. For submission to God’s (Fate’s) will, see, e.g., Seneca Y., Dial. 7.15.4; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.6.1; 1.14.16; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 6.16, and some other texts in Keener, Acts, 3:2491–92; in Judaism, cf. 1 Macc. 3:59–60; in Mediterranean culture (perhaps with some influence from Islamic fatalism?), cf. McVann, “Patience,” 148–49. For doing God’s will in philosophy outside Stoicism, see, e.g., Socrates, Ep. 1; later, Proclus, Poet. essay 6, book 1, K107.16–17.

. Cf. also “Lord willing” (1 Cor. 4:19; 16:7; Acts 18:21; Heb. 6:3; James 4:15; cf. Rom. 1:10), familiar in ancient sources; cf., e.g., Josephus, Ant. 2.333, 347; 7.373; Homer, Il. 8.142; Xenophon, Hell. 2.4.17; 5.1.14; Xenophon, Anab. 7.3.43; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 45.15.

. Echoed in the introductions to Ignatius, Eph. 1 and Rom. 1.

. The Father’s will is mentioned several times in Matthew (e.g., Matt. 7:21; 12:50; 18:14; cf. John 6:40) and may also appear in the same saying in which the Abba tradition is attested (Matt. 26:42; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42). “Will of the Father” recurs in 2 Clement (8.4; 10.1; 14.1), perhaps echoing Matt. 12:50 (quoted in 2 Clem. 9.11).

. See Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:25–26; Rives, Religion, 60; Niang, Faith, 51.

. See, e.g., Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 134–35.

. Arnold, “Astonished,” esp. 444; Das, Galatians, 519.

. Cf. Lightfoot, Galatians, 63, 71, 73.

. E.g., Gen. 24:27; Ruth 4:14; Tob. 9:6; Jdt. 13:18; 1 En. 77:1; Jos. Asen. 3:3–4; one example is the later rabbinic honorific “the Holy One, blessed be he.”

. Cf. 4 Macc 18:24; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2 Tim. 4:18; 1 Pet. 4:11; Rev. 4:9; 5:13; 7:12. This intensifies a familiar LXX expression (Longenecker, Galatians, 9). Since these praises interrupt the text, rhetorical critics would call them ἐκφώνησις (ekphōnēsis) or exclamatio (on which see, e.g., Rowe, “Style,” 143; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 582; Anderson, Glossary, 41).

. E.g., Deut. 27:15–26; Ps. 41:13; Tob. 8:8; 1QS 1.20; 2.10, 18; 4Q286 f7.i.7; t. Ber. 3:26; Sipre Deut. 320.3.1; CIJ 1:434, §599; 1:466, §650; 1:474–75, §661; 2:77–78, §828b; 2:87, §845; 2:96, §856; 2:97, §857; 2:98, §858; 2:98, §859; 2:167–68, §982; PGM 22b.21, 25. See discussion in Oesterley, Liturgy, 147–48.

. Le Cornu, Galatians, 24.

↑ Back to top