Thesis and Refutation: No Other Gospel (1:6–12)

Galatians 1:6–12

Thesis and Refutation: No Other Gospel (1:6–12)

1:6

6Look: I’m shocked that you’re so quickly abandoning the one who called you by abundant generosity [in Christ], for a different “good news”—

Unless a teacher was extremely annoyed, he would typically greet his students in endearing terms. Galatians is the only undisputed letter in which Paul omits a thanksgiving; in the closest parallel, Paul thanks God in 2 Corinthians, but he does so for something other than the spiritual state of the Corinthians. Admittedly, Galatian Christians, not having access to Paul’s other letters, could not sit down and compare letters and note, “Paul wrote to us differently!” Thanksgivings appear in some ancient letters, but they were not mandatory. Nevertheless, in Galatians even Paul’s blessing is brief (Gal. 1:3) and is quickly followed by a curse (1:8–9). As has long been recognized, Paul was conspicuously skipping formal niceties and getting right down to business—in this case, the business of rebuking his audience.

In rhetoric, one normally opened by establishing rapport and praising the audience; in severe cases, however, one could also begin with reproof. Later sample letters of blame and reproach often include I’m shocked or “I am astonished” (θαυμάζω, thaumazō; an expression that appears here in 1:6), as do a number of reproving letters across antiquity’s centuries. Speakers could also use the expression when challenging an audience already persuaded by opponents. The earlier orator Demosthenes employs such attention-grabbing reproofs in letters: “I am amazed if none of you thinks that it is a disgraceful thing”; and “I am amazed if any one of you is ignorant of this fact also.” This reproof, highly unusual in Paul, replaces Paul’s usual thanksgiving.

Here, as often in his letters to local churches (cf. 3:2–5; 1 Cor. 2:1–5; Phil. 1:5–6; 1 Thess. 1:2–10), Paul invokes the memory of the church’s beginning. What astonishes him is how quickly they are abandoning the gracious Lord. This is strong language; quickly (ταχέως, tacheōs; cf. 2 Thess. 2:2) might evoke the speed at which ancient Israel turned aside to the golden calf (Exod. 32:8; cf. Deut. 9:12) and other false religion (Judg. 2:17). In 2 Macc. 7:24, the term that in Gal. 1:6 is translated as abandoning (μετατίθημι, metatithēmi) involves abandoning ancestral Jewish customs; Paul here applies it to those who thought that they were embracing these very customs!

The Galatians risk betraying the Lord who called them (1:6). The language of “calling” may evoke gracious inclusion among God’s people, as in some other Pauline passages. Paul has obeyed God’s calling (1:15), but his rivals try to lure the Galatians away from theirs (5:8); they were called for freedom (5:13). Paul’s contemporaries considered abandoning a benefactor a terrible offense, and Paul reinforces the connotation of God’s benefaction by explicitly noting generosity (grace, χάρις, charis), language frequently associated with benefaction. Depending on the textual variant, Paul might specifically associate the generosity with Christ; certainly the expression is much less familiar than “God’s grace” (e.g., 2:21; some twenty times in the NT, including eleven in Paul), but Paul also would have always associated grace especially with God’s work in Christ (cf. Rom. 5:15; 1 Cor. 1:4).

Normally the term here translated as good news (εὐαγγέλιον, euangelion; Gal. 1:6–7)—that is, the gospel, meaning “good news” or “glad tidings”—included celebratory information previously unknown to an audience. Paul thus applies it most often for the message when he has brought it to a new audience. Ancient writers usually used the plural form of this term (“good tidings”), but Paul and other early Christian writers used it exclusively in the singular, for the one “good news” message above all others. Non-Jewish Greek speakers applied the term to news of victories, weddings, and other sorts of happy announcements. Given the term’s wider uses, scholars’ frequently suggested contrast with good tidings about imperial accessions or birthdays may be overdrawn, though at least texts talking about matters such as the good news of God’s reign (a combination largely avoided in early Christianity outside of Matthew, Mark, and Luke) might thus appear subversive to gentiles.

By contrast, there is little dispute about the biblical origin of the language in the Septuagint’s use of the cognate verb. Early Christian expressions such as “good news of peace” (Acts 10:36; Eph. 2:17; 6:15), “good news of salvation” (Eph. 1:13; cf. Rom. 1:16), and “good news of God’s kingdom” or “reign” (e.g., Mark 1:15; Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Luke 8:1; Acts 8:12) evoke Isa. 52:7, presumably the original source of this language. Other Jewish writers also evoked Isaiah’s language of good news, referring to the promise of Israel’s restoration. Paul undoubtedly inherits the term “gospel” from prior Christian usage, but like his predecessors, he also derives it from Isaiah. Paul elsewhere cites Isa. 52:7 (Rom. 10:15), and he is well aware that it closely precedes Isa. 53 (which he quotes in Rom. 10:16). If “for our sins” in Gal. 1:4 evokes Isa. 53, Paul might retain in mind the same context here.

1:7

7—which is not really a different good news . . . it’s just that there are some who are unsettling you and want to twist the good news about Christ.

After speaking of a different gospel, Paul corrects himself to speak with more technical accuracy. When Paul warns that his hearers are turning to a different good news, one that is not really a gospel, he presumably evokes the language that he believes his rivals are using; perhaps they also envision Isaiah’s good news of Israel’s restoration, but with gentiles being admitted on different terms than Paul affirms. That is, they may expect the nations to serve Israel (e.g., Isa. 49:22; 54:3; 60:5, 11–16; 61:6; 64:2; 66:20), and only the circumcised to become part of God’s people. Presumably emphasizing different promises such as Isa. 2:3–4; 11:10, and especially Isa. 19:19–25; 56:3–8; and Zech. 2:11, Paul believed that the true message was already good news for gentiles who embraced Christ.

In another letter from this period in Paul’s ministry, he accuses opponents—not necessarily the same ones—of preaching a different gospel, which he parallels with preaching a different Jesus and imparting a different spirit (2 Cor. 11:4). Since an imparted spirit different from God’s Spirit would be a demonic spirit, such opponents are false apostles inspired by Satan (2 Cor. 11:13–15; cf. 11:3). A gospel different from the one Paul proclaims is not a true gospel (Gal. 1:7); a gospel of circumcision is hardly gospel—literally, “good news”—for gentiles!

What is the true gospel that Paul proclaims? Unlike us, the first members of the Galatian churches were present when Paul brought them the gospel, but unlike them, we have Paul’s summary of his message elsewhere. Paul reminds the Corinthians “of the good news that [he] proclaimed to [them]” (1 Cor. 15:1), which would save them if they continued to embrace it. This gospel emphasized that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,” according to hundreds of eyewitnesses (15:3–7). This was the same message that other apostles also proclaimed (15:11).

It is doubtful that Paul’s rivals were denying Jesus’s death or resurrection, which seems not to have been at issue in Galatia. Paul did insist, however, that they were missing the theological implication of those events: if Christ died “for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3), he did so to free us from the present evil age (Gal. 1:4). The law proclaimed by Paul’s rivals, by contrast, lacked this power (3:21–22). Christ was exclusively sufficient. Also, Paul had a special commission to preach this good news among gentiles (1:16; 2:2; cf. Rom. 1:5, 13; 11:13; 15:16; Eph. 3:8). As one called to gentiles, he recognized that his rivals’ message was no longer good news for gentiles.

The true gospel was connected with the one who called you by abundant generosity [in Christ] (Gal. 1:6), the same one who also called Paul through his abundant generosity (1:15). That is, this gospel involved a transforming gift to which the outward signs of the covenant merely pointed. This was a grace that cost God his Son’s death, because no law could have accomplished this (2:21); to seek it by keeping the law meant apostasy from God’s grace in Christ (5:4). In other words, the true gospel gave the Galatians new life at God’s initiative; by trying to take back the salvific initiative, Paul’s rivals want to twist the good news about Christ (1:7).

Although we cannot be certain, Paul might know the names of some of his rivals in 1:7. Even when Paul likely knows names, he sometimes suppresses them, whether out of conciseness (1 Cor. 15:6), propriety in a public letter (1 Cor. 4:18; 6:11; 15:12; Phil. 1:15; 2 Thess. 3:11; perhaps 1 Cor. 15:34), or disdain (Gal. 2:4; 2 Cor. 10:12; probably Rom. 3:8; 2 Cor. 3:1; 10:2). Speakers and writers sometimes damned opponents with anonymity; thus, for example, Cicero might claim that he did not wish to seem harsh by denouncing individuals by name—yet in the very process he denounces them by insinuation instead. Paul may display disdain here for these some, these “certain persons” (τινές [tines]; cf. perhaps Gal. 1:9; 3:1; 5:7).

These rivals are now unsettling or disturbing the Galatian believers (1:7). The Greek term translated here as unsettling had a range of meaning that included sowing division. It is probably no coincidence that the same Greek term also appears in the Jerusalem Council’s public disavowal of some law-demanding Jerusalemite believers (tines, “certain persons”) who had earlier disturbed believers in the province directly to Galatia’s south and east (Acts 15:24). By speaking of some who are unsettling you, Paul may directly evoke the language of the widely circulated Jerusalem decree that he either had delivered or soon would deliver among them (Acts 16:4). Paul uses this Greek term again—the only other time in his extant letters—in Gal. 5:10, where he notes that whoever it is that is unsettling you will face divine judgment.

1:8–9

8–9But even if we or a heavenly angel were to announce to you a “good news” different from what we announced to you, let them be accursed! As we said, let me repeat: if anyone preaches a “good news” other than what you received, let them be accursed!

Quickly after his customary epistolary blessing (1:3–5) Paul turns to a curse, although happily not against the Galatians themselves. Curses (1:8–9) and blessings (6:16) also frame the letter’s body, posing a stark choice like the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy. The curse is against those who pervert the gospel, a curse applicable in principle even against himself or an angel if they proclaimed a different gospel. That is, there is no authority that stands above the divine message about the Messiah. Paul elsewhere pronounces a curse more generally on those who do not love the Lord (1 Cor. 16:22), and he would be willing to be accursed himself if it would save his people (Rom. 9:3).

The Greek term translated as accursed (ἀνάθεμα, anathema) often means simply “a votive offering,” but it appears on curse tablets, which could be relevant for ancient magical rituals (see discussion of putative witchcraft language in Gal. 3:1; 5:20). Certainly curses were widely used, including to eliminate competitors in sports, romance, and political spheres, and their users believed them efficacious. They may be implied even on epitaphs, invoking divine vengeance against sorcerers. Loyalty oaths to the emperor summoned curses on oneself if one proved disloyal. The Dead Sea Scrolls include curses and curse rituals against God’s enemies, and Jewish magic was used to bring and ward off curses. Albeit in different forms, many cultures continue to invoke curses today, believing in their efficacy.

More relevantly here, and widely noted, the LXX uses the term for devoting to complete destruction people or things contaminated with evil (e.g., Lev. 27:28–29; Deut. 7:26; Josh. 6:17–18), including communities polluted by false prophets (Deut. 13:15, 17). Although the terminology differs, Paul might revisit the matter of blessings and curses in Gal. 3:8–14. We might translate Paul here colloquially—“Damn them” or “To hell with them”—as long as we recognize that Paul means it more literally than do most who utter such curses today. (“Damn them!” might capture the equivalent force, but equivalence on this point would also too easily lose the connection with the OT concept of curse.) Imprecations were the most frequent “type of appeal to the gods” in Asia Minor. Given the prevalence of curses and pervasive belief in divine vengeance in Anatolia, the Galatians would not take such language lightly.

Paul’s example of himself or an angel preaching a different gospel is hyperbole, a common rhetorical device; the point is not that he expects such divine agents to preach a different gospel, but rather that even if such apparently divine agents as they preached a different gospel, it would be false. The true gospel had depicted the true Jesus (Gal. 3:1) and imparted the true Spirit (3:2–5), so the Galatians should reject any different one (cf. 2 Cor. 11:4).

But why does Paul choose these particular examples for hyperbole? On the one hand, he may simply select the most extreme examples possible. On the other hand, perhaps his rivals made claims relevant to one or both of these examples. Paul’s rivals may have suggested that he himself preached differently (5:11). Moreover, many Jewish visionaries claimed to receive revelations from angels, and claims of such experiences would not be surprising in the intensely charismatic milieu of early Jewish Christianity. Claims of connections with angels also seem to have caused problems among Christians elsewhere in Phrygia (Col. 2:18). Many scholars thus suggest that these teachers claim to have received some angelic instruction, although others demur. A further disputed possibility is that (though grammatically less likely) both of Paul’s examples refer to himself, since he was received as if an angel (Gal. 4:14).

Nevertheless, if Paul has in mind a particular angelic referent, it is not his rivals’ subjective spiritual experiences, but rather their insistence on the law mediated through angels (Gal. 3:19). Even if such angels demanded compliance with the law, the gospel of the Lord Christ was of greater import (cf. Heb. 1:4–2:4). God in Christ, rather than an angel, had revealed the true gospel (Gal. 1:16). The last view makes good sense, whether or not Paul did envision it specifically; Paul would then be foreshadowing his later argument that by embracing the law they are receiving a message given merely through angels.

Although the general sense of Gal. 1:8–9 is clear, there is debate about how to understand the grammatical details. The NRSV rendering probably does capture the sense here. Anyone in 1:9 is more generic than the examples in 1:8, covering any possible example. Scholars often suggest that 1:9 refers back to Paul’s and his companions’ instruction to this effect in the past, but he probably simply refers to what he has just declared in 1:8. Paul’s explicit repetition of the literal point of 1:8 in 1:9 is a way of highlighting the point with greater emphasis.

If we ask how Paul and the Galatians can be so certain that the gospel that they originally received was the right one, a couple points bear mention. First, Paul was passing on what he received, and Paul received this good news directly from Christ himself (“received,” Gal. 1:12). Second, Paul answers this very point in 3:2–5: their experience of the gospel included their dramatic reception of the Spirit, which confirmed beyond doubt their identity in Christ (4:6).

1:10

10For am I trying to persuade people or God right now? Or am I out to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I wouldn’t be Christ’s slave.

Paul frequently resorts to rhetorical questions (e.g., Rom. 2:3–4; 3:1–9; 1 Cor. 9:1–13); in this case, however, scholars are divided regarding what answers he implies. The word translated as persuade (πείθω, peithō) here has a wide range of potential meaning. It most often means something like “persuade,” “cause to believe” (2 Cor. 5:11), “believe / be persuaded” (Gal. 5:10) or (accordingly) “obey,” but it can also include trying to please or pacify someone. Grammatically, one could possibly answer Paul’s opening question four different ways: Paul seeks to please both humans and God (cf. Rom. 12:17; 2 Cor. 8:21); Paul seeks to persuade just humans (God not needing persuasion); Paul seeks to persuade God alone (human opinion being unimportant; cf. Gal. 2:6; 2 Cor. 6:8–9); or Paul, disdaining human rhetoric, seeks to persuade neither.

Many scholars here find a contrast to Paul depending on human persuasion earlier, before his conversion (versus the emphatic still or “now” in Gal. 1:10; cf. 1 Cor. 2:1–5). Before his conversion, which he is preparing to recount, he sought to persuade people to observe the law (cf. Gal. 1:13–14; 5:11). This allusion would implicitly condemn the approach of his law-supporting adversaries, who lack Paul’s converting revelation and do seek to please people (6:12).

Alternatively, Paul’s still in 1:10 may refer back to his let me repeat in 1:9; that is, what Paul is trying to do relates to his curses in 1:8–9. In that case it might mean something closer to its more common meaning, “persuade.” Perhaps Paul seeks to persuade God to carry out the curse Paul invoked in 1:8–9; people sometimes tried to persuade God to take their side or honor their curses. Alternatively, when used with God as the object in the LXX, the verb means “rely on” him. Paul surely does seek to rely on God.

All these options are grammatically conceivable. Regardless of how one construes the grammar, however, Paul’s basic point remains clear from the context. Whether or not Paul is trying to persuade God (God might not need persuading on this matter), Paul has implicitly invoked God in the curse (1:8–9). Israelite curses implicitly invoked God (Lev. 24:11; Josh. 6:26; 1 Sam. 26:19); God rules creation and so may disqualify a curse if he deems it unwarranted (Num. 23:8; 2 Sam. 16:12; Prov. 26:2). Paul does want to persuade people (1 Cor. 10:33), including the Galatians, in whose hearing he chooses to offer the curse. Yet he is not invoking them, as only God has power to validate the curse (Gal. 1:8–9). So whether or not Paul in this passage speaks of wanting to persuade humans here, we know that he does want to persuade people yet not at the expense of compromising dependence on God.

Paul is not here seeking to please people (1:10). Sometimes Paul notes the importance of pleasing (i.e., serving) others (Rom. 15:1–3), and that he tried to please people for the sake of winning them to Christ (1 Cor. 10:33). Unfortunately, such language may have been used against him by his detractors; persuading people by “pleasing” them was the behavior of a demagogue. Ancients debated the extent to which persuasion could devolve into people-pleasing. Unlike true philosophers, intellectuals complained, others pandered to the masses for money. (Admittedly, those whose rhetorical or literary occupations required them to please clienteles often qualified this pleasing as a matter of degree.) Moralists firmly condemned flattery and warned that true friends spoke truth even when it seemed painful (cf. Gal. 4:16; 1 Thess. 2:5). Even those who did seek to ingratiate themselves with others would deny that they were doing do. Such flatterers were viewed as servile, but Paul protests here that he is instead a slave of Christ (Gal. 1:10).

Paul’s opponents may have accused him of pleasing people. Thus they thought that in some contexts he catered to Jewish interests (cf. Gal. 5:11; Acts 16:3), but that elsewhere he watered down the gospel for the gentiles, when convenient, to make their inclusion simpler. Flattery was a form of hypocrisy, a charge that Paul will associate instead with those who compromise the true gospel to please Judean hardliners at gentiles’ expense (Gal. 2:13–14).

Whenever any conflict between pleasing God and pleasing people existed, Paul wanted to please God rather than people (1 Thess. 2:4). In this context, by harshly invoking a curse (Gal. 1:8–9), Paul was surely not trying to please people! His rivals in Galatia were concerned with pleasing people (4:16–17; 6:12), but Paul was a servant of Christ. Pleasing God rather than people meant that he moved from persecutor to persecuted (1:13; 4:29; 5:11). Accordingly, he would obey the divine revelation to preach to the gentiles, including those in Galatia (1:11–16), regardless of the cost (5:11).

Paul elsewhere calls himself (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1) or fellow workers (Col. 4:12) slaves of God or Christ. Moses (e.g., 2 Kings 18:12; Neh. 10:29), Joshua (Josh. 24:29; Judg. 2:8), the prophets (e.g., 2 Kings 9:7, 36; 24:2), and other agents of God in the OT often are called God’s servants. Moreover, slaves of powerful persons sometimes wielded considerable prestige or authority themselves. Such a role can sometimes be contrasted in principle with being a slave of people (1 Cor. 7:22; Eph. 6:6), unless at the Lord’s bidding (2 Cor. 4:5).

1:11

11For I’m informing you, brothers and sisters, that the good news announced by me isn’t a human idea.

Paul’s direct address brothers and sisters (1:11; 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18) differs from the far more common direct address “men,” and as fictive kinship terminology, brothers and sisters normally referred to a fellow member of one’s in-group. Paul uses expressions such as I’m informing you (1:11) to hold attention or highlight some important points (1 Cor. 12:3; 15:1; 2 Cor. 8:1). In 1:11–12, Paul articulates the thesis that he will elaborate by way of illustration in 1:13–24 and perhaps beyond it. His focus is the good news announced by me to the Galatians.

Isn’t a human idea includes the Greek phrase κατὰ ἄνθρωπον (kata anthrōpon), which Paul elsewhere uses for imprecise, “human” illustrations (Rom. 3:5; Gal. 3:15) or what is merely human (1 Cor. 3:3; 9:8; 15:32).

In 1:1, Paul insisted that God rather than human beings commissioned him; now, in 1:11–12, he shows the same for the good news that his commission involved. This contrast dominates the following narrative: he received this gospel through a revelation of Christ narrated in 1:13–16a, and he did not depend on human sources for it, as shown in 1:16–21. Indeed, he had to defend this gospel even when the Jerusalem leadership seemed uncommitted, ambivalent, or even confused (2:2, 5, 7, 14). When plausible, appeals to divine authorization were rhetorically effective, both among gentiles and Jewish people.

This revelation is relevant to the Galatians because this is the good news announced by me (1:11)—that is, to them (what we announced to you, 1:8–9)—a gospel from which they have been turning to a human gospel that is not from Christ (1:6–7).

1:12

12Likewise, I neither received it from a human being nor was I taught it. Rather, I have it through Jesus Christ being revealed to me.

Although they received the gospel from Paul (1:9), Paul himself received it through Christ rather than human agents (1:12). (From a human being [Greek παρὰ ἀνθρώπου, para anthrōpou] means from no mere human.) When involving human agents, “received” often implies receiving traditions that have been passed on, including elsewhere in Paul (1 Cor. 11:2, 23; 15:1, 3). It is therefore likely no coincidence that Paul quickly mentions his ancestral traditions (1:14), since “traditions” literally means “matters passed on.” Once Paul had followed human traditions—the sort of traditions now probably followed by his rivals (cf. Mark 7:8; Col. 2:8). Now, however, he no longer proclaims traditions received from mortals, but rather the gospel he received directly from Christ.

Paul would be disingenuous if he tried to deny that at some point he heard the essential gospel story shared by the first witnesses (1 Cor. 15:3–4). Paul is not denying contact with other Christians, however, but rather is claiming that he first encountered this reality independently and directly from Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 15:8). To emphasize this point, he elaborates it in three ways, with two negations and one affirmation: I neither received it . . . nor was I taught it. . . . Rather, I have it through . . .

Some scholars emphasize the connection between revelation (ἀποκάλυψις, apokalupsis) in Gal. 1:12 and apocalyptic literature. Although Paul does share an apocalyptic worldview, this particular verbal connection is anachronistic; apocalyptic literature later earned that designation by virtue of its similiarity to the book of Revelation, not yet written in Paul’s day. Paul employs the term and its cognate verb for charismatic revelation (1 Cor. 2:10; 14:6, 26, 30; 2 Cor. 12:1, 7; Phil. 3:15) but also for God’s truth revealed in the gospel (Rom. 1:17), God’s present and future wrath (Rom. 1:18; 2:5), and what will be revealed in the eschatological time (Rom. 2:5; 8:18–19; 1 Cor. 1:7; 3:13; cf. 2 Thess. 1:7; 2:6, 8).

Grammatically, “through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (δι’ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, di’ apokalupseōs Iēsou Christou) in Gal. 1:12 could mean a revelation “from” him or, more likely here, a revelation “about” him. Here God is the direct source of the revelation (1:15) and Jesus is the content (1:16). Jesus usually appears as the content of the revelation (although 2 Cor. 12:1 and Rev. 1:1 are debatable), as is usual with nouns in the genitive following “revelation” in Paul.

. In Christ represents a textual variant here.

. So for Epicureans, Philodemus, Crit. frg. 14.

. Witherington, Corinthians, 474; Hays, “Galatians,” 188.

. Cf. Van Voorst, “Thanksgiving Period.”

. E.g., BGU 816.

. Origen, Comm. Rom., on Rom. 1:8; Ramsay, Galatians, 249–51; Neil, Galatians, 21; Stowers, Letter Writing, 22; Sanders, Paul, 475.

. Aeschines, Ctes. 1; Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436b.17–1437a.2 (esp. 29, 1436b.33–39); 36, 1441b.36–1442b.27; Cicero, De or. 1.31.143; Inv. 1.15.20; Sest. 1.2; Rosc. com. 3.7; Pseudo-Dionysus, Epid. 1.256–57; Quintilian, Inst. 3.7.24; 4.1.16; 4.1.23; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 34.7–8; 39.1; 41.1; Chariton, Chaer. 5.7.1; Heraclitus, Hom. Prob. 59.7; Sipre Deut. 343.1.2. In letters, see, e.g., Let. Aris. 1–2; Cicero, Fam. 13.66.1.

. Witherington, Grace, 80; cf. Quintilian, Inst. 4.1.11. For threatening to place a curse, see Betz, Galatians, 46.

. Stowers, Letter Writing, 139, citing Libanius.

. E.g., P.Oxy. 113.19–24; BGU 850.1–6; P.Mich. 209.1–13; in esp. Hansen, Abraham, 28, 33–43; cf. also Roberts, “Expression of Perplexity”; Stowers, Letter Writing, 134; deSilva, Readings, 63; Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 219. Still, the evidence is limited, as noted by Das (Galatians, 66). For one Jewish example, see Gen. Rab. 1:15 in Le Cornu, Galatians, 25–26.

. Witherington, Grace, 81, and Das, Galatians, 99, citing Cicero, Inv. 1.17.25.

. Demosthenes, Ep. 3.11, 23.

. The verb appears elsewhere in the Pauline corpus only at 2 Thess. 1:10; Luke reports Paul using this verb only in this region, in a quotation from Habakkuk (Acts 13:41). A protagonist’s astonishment at others’ unbelief appears also in Mark 6:6.

. Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 145.

. With Mussner, Galaterbrief, 53n54; Hays, “Galatians,” 204; Schreiner, Galatians, 85; Lyons, Galatians, 60; Das, Galatians, 100. Wilson (“Apostasy”) rightly observes, but might overplay, the wilderness echo here (Das, Galatians, 100n13).

. Cf. 2 Macc. 11:24. With Matera, Galatians, 45; Dunn, Galatians, 39–40; Moo, Galatians, 77. The term has broader meaning (such as leaving a philosophic school), but this is the most relevant Septuagintal example.

. Oakes (Galatians, 43), noting that communities were expected to be loyal to and to reverence founders, suggests that they are deserting Paul. Paul, however, applies this “call” verb with respect to conversion especially to God (1 Cor. 1:9; 7:17–18; Gal. 1:15; 1 Thess. 2:12; 4:7; 5:24).

. See Rom. 9:7, 12, 25; 11:29; cf. Isa. 49:1; 51:2. It may evoke a “chosen” people (Deut. 4:37; 7:6; 10:5; 14:2; Pss. 33:12; 105:6; Isa. 41:8–9; 43:10, 20; 44:1, 2; 45:4; Jer. 33:24; Ezek. 20:5; Amos 3:2) related to Abraham (cf. Gen. 18:19; Neh. 9:7).

. Mere ingratitude toward benefaction was scandalous (Seneca Y., Ben. 1.10.4; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 31.37; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11k, p. 80.22; Suetonius, Claud. 25.1; Josephus, Ant. 19.361); the public would oppose someone criticizing a public benefactor (Lucian, Peregr. 19). For the horror of mistreating benefactors, see also, e.g., 2 Macc. 4:2; 3 Macc. 3:19; 6:24; Wis. 19:14.

. Whether “by grace” or, with Fee (Galatians, 23–24), into the sphere of grace.

. Harrison, Grace, 2–3, 50–53, 80–84, 114–35, 138–40, 145–50, 166–78; Engberg-Pedersen, “Gift-Giving”; du Toit, “Paulus Oecumenicus.”

. A wider range of early sources support “of Christ” (or a variation thereof) than its omission. Both readings can claim the support of very early manuscripts (e.g., “of Christ” in P51vid, A and B; the omission in P46vid). But in patristic sources omission may be less significant than inclusion, and geographic range supports inclusion.

. See Dickson, “Gospel as News.”

. The earliest extant exception is Diogn. 11.6, apparently referring to written Gospels.

. With Dunn, Galatians, 41, 45; Martyn, Galatians, 127–32; Das, Galatians, 104.

. For the latter, see Horsley, Documents 3, 10–12, §2.

. E.g., Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 23.

. Cf., e.g., Horsley, “Assembly,” 386; Wright, “Messiahship,” 23.

. Cf., e.g., Nock, “Vocabulary,” 132. Some see both imperial and biblical language behind the term: Hultgren, Romans, 72; Wright, Founder, 42–43; Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 80–87; Wright, Faithfulness, 915.

. See, e.g., Pss. Sol. 11:1.

. In Q Matt. 11:5 // Luke 7:22, Jesus evokes the language in Isa. 61:1.

. Although some scholars still distinguish here Paul’s terms for different in 1:6 and 1:7 (e.g., de Boer, Galatians, 41), they were usually interchangeable by this period of Greek, including normally in Paul (Bruce, Galatians, 81; Martyn, Galatians, 110; Schreiner, Galatians, 86; Das, Galatians, 97). Witherington (Grace, 82–83) cites Elliott, “Ἕτερος.”

. Persuaders would sometimes make and then immediately and deliberately correct a statement to drive home a point more forcefully, as here; see Rhet. Her. 4.26.36; Hermogenes, Inv. 4.12.203–4; cf. Rowe, “Style,” 141; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 581; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 146; Anderson, Glossary, 71. Cf. examples in, e.g., 1 Cor. 1:16; Appian, Hist. rom. 4.11; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.9, 414.25–27.

. Dunn, Galatians, 10; Martyn, Galatians, 121; cf. Dodd, More Studies, 45–46.

. On ancient demonology, see Ferguson, Demonology; Keener, Miracles, 2:769–87.

. Luke mentions Paul preaching “good news” (using the verb form) in this region (Acts 13:32; 14:7, 15, 21) as often as everywhere else together; Paul employs the verb or noun as often in Galatians as in Romans and 1 Corinthians (though Galatians is only a third of their length). For gentiles, the good news also included meeting a God far more gracious than their previous deities (Acts 14:15; cf. 1 Thess. 1:5, 9–10).

. Luke reports Paul preaching this message in this region (Acts 13:30–31), the only time when Luke’s account of Paul mentions multiple resurrection appearances (although Luke reports it in Petrine speeches; see Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41).

. For grace as empowering gift, as benevolence with expectations, see Barclay, Gift.

. Here, “twist” can mean simply “turn” or “change,” but changing something good to something bad twists or perverts it (as also in Sir. 11:31).

. Possibly also Gal. 2:12. Cf. also false teachers or apostates in 1 Tim. 1:3, 6, 19; 4:1 (and possibly 5:24); 6:10, 21; 2 Tim. 2:18.

. E.g., Res gest. 1.1; 4.24; Aeschines, Ctes. 1; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 12.36; 40.8–9, 20–23; 51.3; Quintilian, Decl. 293.1; Lucian, Peregr. 11–13 (esp. 13); Aelius Aristides, Def. Or. 247, §76D; Hermogenes, Inv. 4.3.179; see esp. Marshall, Enmity, 341–48.

. Cicero, Agr. 24.63–64. For the strategy, cf. also Hermogenes, Issues 88.12–14.

. Martyn, Galatians, 121; de Boer, Galatians, 42; Oakes, Galatians, 44.

. The term can refer to bringing needless disorder (e.g., Josephus, J.W. 7.79, 88). In 1 Macc. 3:5; 7:22, it applies to both gentiles and Jews who disturbed God’s people by unfaithfulness to God’s law; in Josephus, Life 134, a disturber exploits the law unjustly.

. Often for emotional disturbance (e.g., Epictetus, Ench. 1.3; 3.1; Diatr. 2.1.24; Prov. 12:25; Isa. 19:3; 2 Macc. 15:19; T. Ab. 13:6 B; T. Dan 4:7), which philosophy sought to counter (Epictetus, Ench. 12.2; 29.7; Diatr. 2.5.2; 4.8.27; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 10.85; 10.144.17).

. E.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 34.19; Josephus, Ant. 16.278; 17.325; 1 Macc. 3:5; 7:22; Acts 17:8, 13.

. Cf. Martyn, Galatians, 112; Hays, “Galatians,” 205; de Boer, Galatians, 43. Like Paul, some of his opponents were mobile (cf., e.g., 2 Cor. 11:4).

. Cf. likewise Luke’s “some” in Acts 15:1, 5, 24. Whatever Paul’s possible influence on its wording, Paul certainly knew the Jerusalem church’s circular letter (Acts 15:22, 25), the substance of which would have been widely disseminated and surely preserved (see Keener, Acts, 3:2281–82).

. Talbert (Romans, 35) suggests that Paul’s “double curse” here replaces his usual prayer for his hearers.

. Betz, “Defense,” 112, although going too far in speaking of Galatians as a “magical letter.”

. With Le Cornu, Galatians, 32.

. De Boer, Galatians, 45–46.

. See BDAG. Cf. 1 En. 95:4. Nock (“Vocabulary,” 135) finds an unexplained use for cursing to be distinctively Jewish.

. See, e.g., Aeschylus, Seven 70, 656, 695–97, 709; Lib. 912; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 13.69.2; Justin, Epit. 14.2.13–14; Tacitus, Ann. 2.69; PGM. See Morland, Rhetoric, 158, cited in Das, Galatians, 107n46; see also Klauck, Context, 223–26; Frankfurter, “Curses”; Graf, “Curse”; Harder, “Defixio”; Versnel, “Devotio”; Winter, Left Corinth, 165; Jordan, “New Curse Tablets”; Haensch, “Inscriptions,” 185–86; Ramos, “Blessings.”

. Graf, “Death.”

. Sherk, Empire, 31, §15; 78, §41.

. 1QS 2.4; 1QM 13.1–5; 4Q257 2.1; 4Q266 f11.17; 4Q286 f7ii.2–11. For the apparent magical invocation of a demon in 4Q560, see Lincicum, “Fever.”

. E.g., Morgenstern, “Magic Bowl.” Some used Scripture fragments; see Lincicum, “Apotropaism.”

. Ngewa, Galatians, 27. Anthropological literature and other research provides many examples; see, e.g., Lienhardt, “Death”; Dawson, “Urbanization,” 328–29; Prince, “Yoruba Psychiatry,” 91; Mbiti, Religions, 204, 258; Favret-Saada, Witchcraft, 123–27; Azenabor, “Witchcraft,” 27; Obeyesekere, “Sorcery”; Hoare, “Approach,” 127–28; Azevedo, Prater, and Lantum, “Biomedicine”; Welbourn, “Healing,” 364; Shoko, Religion, 123. In the West, see earlier Waardt, “Witchcraft”; more recently, Sebald, “Witchcraft.”

. E.g., Garnet, “Light,” 25; Schreiner, Galatians, 87–88; Das, Galatians, 107. Achan “troubled” Israel with contaminated matter in regard to the ἀνάθεμα (anathema, 1 Chron. 2:7), though the LXX uses a different term than Paul’s ταράσσω (tarassō) in Gal. 1:7.

. Cf. Walz, “Cursing,” 173; Haraguchi, “Words”; Das, Galatians, 108. The term for “curse” here does not appear in the same LXX contexts with the term translated as “curse” in Gal. 3:10, 13, but the conceptual link with declaring curses is not limited to English (cf., e.g., Gen. 12:3; Num. 23:8; Rom. 12:14).

. Some argue that Paul here proposes excommunication (cf. Gal. 4:30; 1 Cor. 5:3–7) (Betz, Galatians, 53; Martyn, Galatians, 114); others, noting that God is implicitly invoked, demur (Lightfoot, Galatians, 78; Schreiner, Galatians, 87–88). Paul’s “damning” need not disallow the hope of repentance (as in 1 Cor. 5:5), though that is not Paul’s immediate concern.

. Calder, “Introduction, 7,” xxxv–xxxvi; cf. MAMA, 1, §§25, 126, 294, 425, 437.

. See Niang, Faith, 51, 55–56. Cf. TAMV (Tituli Asiae Minoris) 1.509 (Toner, Culture, 30).

. Taking the first-person plural as editorial, referring to Paul (Moo, Galatians, 81). Some teachers did encourage critical evaluation even of the teacher’s words (Musonius Rufus, Lect. 1, p. 36.6–7).

. See Rhet. Her. 4.44; Rowe, “Style,” 128; Anderson, Glossary, 122–24; Pilch, “Dramatic Orientation,” 51; here, Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 579.

. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ep. Gal. 1.8 (arguing the impossibility); Schreiner, Galatians, 87.

. E.g., 1 En. 1:2; 72:1; 74:2; Jub. 4:21; 32:21; 4 Ezra 4:1; 3 Bar. 1:8; 5:1; 6:1; 4 Bar. 6:15; T. Reu. 5:3; T. Jud. 15:5; 4Q537 f1+2+3.0; Pseudo-Eupolemus in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.17.9; b. Ber. 51a; b. Ned. 20ab; Gen. Rab. 50:9; 68:12; 78:2; Russell, Apocalyptic, 242–43; Urbach, Sages, 1:177; Ruffato, “Raguel”; Arbel, “Enoch-Metatron.”

. Cf. Acts 2:17–18; 8:26; 10:3, 22; 11:13; 27:23; 2 Cor. 12:1–4; Rev. 1:1; 17:1; 21:9; Daniélou, Theology, 140.

. Jerome, Comm. Gal. 1.1.8 (suggesting that angels could fall); Martyn, Galatians, 113; cf. Goulder, “Vision.”

. Moo, Galatians, 80–81; Oakes, Galatians, 45. Paul mainly refutes dependence on human beliefs.

. De Boer, Galatians, 48.

. Dunn, Galatians, 45; Vance, Galatians 1 & 2, 21; others demur here, e.g., Moo, Galatians, 81.

. See Armitage, “Exploration.”

. Cf. de Boer, Galatians, 52, also comparing the generic τίς (tis) in 3:1. Paul’s use of the indicative here, as opposed to the subjunctive in 1:8, may suggest that he is no longer speaking hypothetically (Schreiner, Galatians, 88).

. Burton, Galatians, 29 (citing ἄρτι [arti], “now”); Bachmann, “Gal. 1,9”; Witherington, Grace, 84; Das, Galatians, 109. Cf. the same verb (προλέγω, prolegō) with this sense in Gal. 5:21.

. With Häfner, “Auslegung.”

. In rhetoric, cf. ἀναδίπλωσις (anadiplōsis) and mimetikon (Anderson, Glossary, 18, 77; cf. 116).

. Appropriate language for the passing on of tradition, although Paul uses only the term for “receive” (and applies it only to the Galatians) and not “pass on” here. See more explicitly 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3; Josephus, Ant. 13.297, 408; Thucydides, Hist. 1.85.1; Socratics, Ep. 20; Strabo, Geogr. 10.3.7; Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.29.621; cf. Fuller, Formation, 10; Barrett, Gospel Tradition, 1–2; Longenecker, Exegesis, 84; Keck, Paul, 10; Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 120.

. On rhetorical questions, see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 51–52.

. BDAG.

. By Paul’s day, “persuading people” defined rhetoric (Betz, Galatians, 54–55; Martyn, Galatians, 138; de Boer, Galatians, 62, citing Plato, Prot. 352E; Gorg. 452E). Philosophers, especially in earlier times, sometimes claimed to disdain rhetoric (Plato, Theaet. 164CD; Hippias major; Hippias minor; Pseudo-Anacharsis, Ep. 1; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 3.4.ext. 1; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.23; Tacitus, Dial. 31–32, 42; Aulus Gellius, Att. 5.3.7; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 1.7; 1.16.4; Philo, Creation 45).

. See esp. Das, Galatians, 111–12.

. Barclay, Gift, 356.

. Luther, First Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 1:10 (Bray); Das, Galatians, 113.

. De Boer, Galatians, 63 (citing Josephus, Ant. 4.123; 8.255); Das, Galatians, 111–12. Dunn (Galatians, 50) suggests that the agitators accused Paul of trying to persuade God to accept gentiles without circumcision.

. 2 Kings 18:22; 2 Chron. 14:10; 16:7–8; Job 27:8 (LXX only); Ps. 118:8 (LXX 117:8); 125:1 (LXX 124:1); Prov. 28:25; 29:25; Isa. 8:17; 10:20; 36:7; 58:14; Zeph. 3:2.

. Usage would suggest a contrary-to-fact conditional sentence (Fee, Galatians, 34; Schreiner, Galatians, 89), though context could prove more decisive.

. Noting different contexts, Augustine (Ep. Gal. 5 [1B.1.10] [Edwards]) recognized that Paul both pleased others and did not please others. Similarly, Atticus was more interested in doing right than in doing what others would laud (Cornelius Nepos, Gen. 25 [Atticus], 9.7), but he did avoid grounds for being suspected of wrongdoing (6.4). In ordinary speech and writing, we hold some ideals in tension (see Pelling, Texts and Historian, 4, 12–13), as ancients also often recognized (e.g., Prov. 26:4–5).

. Betz, Galatians, 55. See further (regularly from the aristocratic perspective) Aristophanes, Ach. 371–73; Isocrates, Ad Nic. 48–49; Aristotle, Pol. 4.4.4–7, 1292a; Xenophon, Hell. 2.3.47; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 11; Livy, Hist. 3.71.5; 6.11.7; 22.34.2; Appian, Hist. rom. 2.9; 3.7.1; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 4.124; 38.2; 54.1; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11b, p. 64.22–23; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 6.5; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 4.42; contrast Aelius Aristides, Def. Or. 189, §57D; 201–2, §61D–62D. See also Glad, “Adaptability,” 20–21; Litfin, Theology, 115–17.

. Witherington, Grace, 84, following Litfin, Theology, 37ff.

. Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 11; Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 2.83.2.

. Terence, Eun. 1–3; Self-Torm. 51–52; Fronto, M. Caes. 1.8.2–3; cf. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 147–48. For pleasing oneself versus others, cf. Pliny Y., Ep. 6.14.2.

. See, e.g., Isocrates, Ad Nic. 28; Seneca Y., Dial. 10.15.2; Plutarch, Profit 6 (Mor. 89B); Flatterer 17–37 (Mor. 59A–74E); cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 11.9.1; Plutarch, Educ. 17 (Mor. 13B); Tacitus, Hist. 1.15.

. See, e.g., Symmachus, Ep. 1.12.1.

. E.g., Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 2.83.1; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 7, p. 58.3; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 51.1; 66.13–14; Aelius Aristides, Def. Or. 309, §100D; Iamblichus, Pyth. Life 32.226; Marshall, Enmity, 73–90, 256–57.

. Some scholars question whether Paul in fact responds to critics in this section. Noting that Paul addresses people-pleasing elsewhere, Lyons (Autobiography, 143) questions whether opponents’ charges raised the issue. Lyons (Autobiography, 171) and Matera (Galatians, 54) suggest that Paul simply shows his consistency. Paul sometimes affirms his consistency, however, to respond to charges that he was inconsistent (2 Cor. 1:17–23).

. See, e.g., Ramsay, Galatians, 266–67; Neil, Galatians, 24; Bonnard, L’Épître aux Galates, 25; Mussner, Galaterbrief, 63; Fee, Galatians, 34; deSilva, Readings, 19, 67; Schreiner, Galatians, 49; de Boer, Galatians, 65; Moo, Galatians, 85; Sanders, Paul, 478.

. With Oakes, Galatians, 46.

. For pleasing the Lord, cf. also Rom. 8:8; 1 Cor. 7:32–34; 1 Thess. 2:4; 4:1; Pharisees in Josephus, Ant. 13.289; cf. ἀρεσκεία (areskeia) in Col. 1:10; the related adjective εὐάρεστος (euarestos) in Rom. 12:1–2; 14:18; 2 Cor. 5:9; Eph. 5:10; Phil. 4:18; Col. 3:20. Cf. Stoic emphasis on pleasing God rather than people in Seneca Y., Lucil. 102.29; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.12.11; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11k, p. 84.14; cf. Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 6.59.

. As, in Gal. 2:11–14, is Peter, in contrast to Paul; see Dodd, “Slave.”

. Cf. Hunn, “Pleasing God.”

. Cf. also the titles in James 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 1; Rev. 1:1; more generally, Acts 2:18; Rev. 22:3.

. Epictetus, Diatr. 1.19.19; 4.7.23; Deissmann, Light, 376; Martin, Slavery, 47–49.

. Judean freedom fighters treated this antithesis more literally; see Josephus, Ant. 18.23.

. Cf., e.g., Isaeus, Nicost. 1–2, 13, 14, 21, 27; Dicaeog. 5, 29, 34, 35, 38, 41; Aeschines, Leg. 1, 4, 7, 55, 80, 87, 88, 108, 135; Demosthenes, Aphobus 1, 3, 4; further discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:867–69.

. See, e.g., Tob. 5:10; 6:10; 7:3; 2 Macc. 1:1; 1QS 6.22; 1QSa 1.18; 1QM 13.1; 15.4; in the NT, passim; see further discussion in Keener, Acts, 2:1663–64.

. Such disclosure formulas also appear in some other ancient letters. Hansen (Abraham, 28) cites as examples P.Giss 11.4; P.Mich. 28.16.

. Aletti (“Fonction”) and Buscemi (Lettera, 76) view Gal. 1:11–12 as the propositio that introduces the narratio (1:11–2:21). Hansen (Galatians, 40) similarly views it as the “thesis statement.” Betz (Galatians, 59) cites Quintilian, Inst. 4.2.21–23, for this being a proper way to introduce the narratio.

. Fitting Semitic idiom but perhaps reinforcing his focus in Greek, Paul’s noun and verb here are cognate (εὐαγγέλιον . . . εὐαγγελισθέν [euangelion . . . euangelisthen]).

. Cf. Philo, Virtues 217.

. The centrality of gospel and its cognates in this section cannot be missed; it appears in 1:6–9, 11, 16, 23; 2:2, 5, 7, 14, and afterward in Galatians only with reference to his first preaching to them in 4:13.

. See, e.g., Isocrates, Nic. 13; Betz, Galatians, 56 (citing Plato, Apol. 20DE).

. Hall, “Arguing.”

. Ancient readers sometimes found an allusion to Christ’s deity in this contrast; see Marius Victorinus, Ep. Gal. 1.1.11 (tentatively); Pamphilus, Apology for Origen (PG 17:585) (Edwards); cf. comment on Gal. 1:1.

. As in Diogn. 4.6.

. E.g., Thucydides, Hist. 1.85.1; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 18.10; Lucian, Alex. 61; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 28.148–49; Josephus, Ant. 13.297, 408; Mark 7:3, 5; Luke 1:2; 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3; see also BDAG.

. Paul was not alone in his views (see Irenaeus, Haer. 3.13.1, against Valentinian claims; Pagels, Paul, 102).

. Probably Paul refers specifically to his conversion experience of the gospel, but Neil (Galatians, 25) suggests that “he means particularly that no one taught him that Jews and Gentiles are equal.”

. For lingering on a point, see, e.g., Hermogenes, Method 5.417–18; Rowe, “Style,” 144–45; Anderson, Glossary, 53; cf. also pleonasm in Anderson, Glossary, 102; examples in Euripides, frg. 866; Cicero, Prov. cons. 1.2.

. E.g., Dunn, Galatians, 53; de Boer, Galatians, 78, 93. See criticism in Oakes, Galatians, 56.

. An objective genitive, with Burton, Galatians, 41–43; Hansen, Galatians, 40; Schreiner, Galatians, 97; Sanders, Paul, 508; also Das (Galatians, 121), who notes that God is always the subject of this verb in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 2:10; Gal. 1:16; Phil. 3:15). Pace Fee, Galatians, 36.

↑ Back to top