TEXT [Commentary]

  II.   An Exposing Rebuke (1:6-10)

6 I am shocked that you are turning away so soon from God, who called you to himself through the loving mercy of Christ.[*] You are following a different way that pretends to be the Good News 7 but is not the Good News at all. You are being fooled by those who deliberately twist the truth concerning Christ.

8 Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News than the one we preached to you. 9 I say again what we have said before: If anyone preaches any other Good News than the one you welcomed, let that person be cursed.

10 Obviously, I’m not trying to win the approval of people, but of God. If pleasing people were my goal, I would not be Christ’s servant.

NOTES

1:6 The introduction of this section is reminiscent of other Gr. letters of rebuke (cf. Longenecker 1990:11, 14), though its focus is particularly theocentric.

I am shocked. Gr., thaumazō [TG2296, ZG2513]; perhaps more forcefully translated, “I am stunned.”

turning away so soon. It is debated whether these “turncoats” were apostate. The use of the present tense may suggest that the process was still going on (so George 1994:91), but it could also be the historical present tense. The note of “so soon” (tacheōs [TG5030, ZG5441]) is also intriguing. It may be that Paul was recalling how soon, after the Passover and the crossing of the sea, the Israelites had deserted God for the golden calf in the wilderness (Exod 32:7-8)—the situation appears to be quite parallel.

the loving mercy of Christ. There are several variants in the mss related to the phrase “of Christ”; some add “Jesus” (D syrh**—so TR and KJV) and others substitute “of God” (327). The most significant variant is the omission of “of Christ” (46vid F* G Hvid), but an impressive combination of witnesses (51 א A B 33 1739) do include “of Christ.” I am inclined to agree with most English translations that it belongs in the text.

1:8 curse. This idea has its roots in the OT concept of kherem [TH2764, ZH3051], which connotes condemnation and utter destruction.

an angel. Some Jews and Christians of the first century were not hesitant to speak about angelic visitations. During the intertestamental period, discussions concerning angels had multiplied. Drawing upon Dan 12:1, Jews named archangels such as Michael, Uriel, Gabriel, Raphael, and Raquel (each name ended with the suffix “el,” indicating that they were agents of God; cf. 1 Enoch 1:20; 4 Ezra 2–4).

1:9 I say again. This announcement is an emphatic repetition of the curse.

you welcomed. Lit., “you received” (parelabete [TG3880, ZG4161]). Paul used this technical rabbinic term in his epistles to denote the passing on of tradition in a completely faithful or unaltered state. He used two terms for this process: paralambanō (“receive,” as in this verse) and paradidōmi [TG3860, ZG4140] (“pass on” or “deliver”; cf. 1 Cor 11:23 and 15:3).

1:10 Obviously. The argument in 1:10 completes the rebuke by implicitly excluding Paul from the curse and making a transition to the next section, in which Paul provides insights into his own pilgrimage with God. It is like a saddle between two mountains that enables climbers to move from one peak to another. I have pointed regularly to the phenomenon of saddle texts in my commentary on John (Borchert 1996:167, 217). In this transition, Paul uses a couple of Gr. questions that are reminiscent of Cynic and Stoic diatribes. In that method of argument, a person asked leading questions in such a way that the answers would be apparent, and any opponent to the questioner would quickly realize that he would likely appear foolish or misinformed if he were to persist in his opposition (cf. Rom 2:21-23; 3:1-3; 4:1-2, 9-10; 6:1, 15; 7:7, 13; 8:31-34).

servant. Paul most often characterized himself as a servant or slave. Here he identifies himself as a slave (doulos [TG1401, ZG1528]; cf. Rom 1:1). Paul’s goal was to imitate the self-giving servant model of Christ (Phil 2:5-8), which in turn would provide a model for others (Phil 3:17). This perspective is the exact opposite of seeking prestige through people-pleasing (cf. Matt 20:25-28).

COMMENTARY [Text]

Paul’s first statement is shocking. Instead of thanking God for the recipients, as one might expect from his other letters (cf. Col 1:3-10; 1 Thess 1:2-10), he rebuked the Galatians, charging them with incomprehensible desertion. The metaphorical use of metatithesthe [TG3346A, ZG3572] normally means changing one’s place; here it implies exchanging one’s relationship with God for something else. The Galatians had abandoned their commitment to God’s loving and gracious message of salvation in Jesus Christ to adopt, instead, counterfeit substitutes preached by those who claimed to have a better message of salvation.

The Galatians were not just deserting Paul—they were departing from God. From Paul’s point of view, the Galatians had abandoned the real meaning of Christ’s gracious love that was embodied in the gospel. The Galatians’ claim to a “different kind of Good News” was not acceptable to Paul. Two Greek words used in 1:6-7 make an important distinction: the Galatians were advocating a “different” (heteron [TG2087, ZG2283]) gospel message, but Paul refused to accept this “other” (allo [TG243, ZG257]) gospel message as being the true gospel. The Galatians might have argued that these were different forms of the true gospel and that theirs was actually preferable to Paul’s because it included Old Testament patterns. Paul rejected their view and denied it any legitimacy. In fact, he objected to the idea that their new message was Good News at all. Instead, Paul said that those who proclaimed this other message were perverters of the authentic gospel.

The plural use of “those” (tines [TG5100, ZG5516], “certain ones”) at 1:7 indicates that there were a number of false teachers who continued to disturb the Galatian churches by deliberately “twisting” (metastrepsai [TG3344, ZG3570]) Paul’s earlier presentation of the gospel. Because of their adulteration of the gospel, Paul wished that they would be utterly cursed and destroyed. Such an anathema (curse) brought with it the terrible expectation that the wrath of God would fall on anyone who was so cursed (TDNT 1.354).

Paul’s commitment to the authentic gospel was absolute. He permitted no alteration of the gospel proclamation: salvation is based on the death of Jesus and freely available to all people—a gift of God’s grace received by faith. Paul emphatically cursed anyone who would bring a different gospel, even if the messenger were an angel. At that time, the Jews viewed God as being so high and lifted up that communication from God was expected to come through the mediation of angels (see IDB 1.132-133). When Jesus became the mediator between God and humanity, however, the role of angels was greatly reduced. The book of Hebrews clearly places angels in a role subordinate to the Son (1:5-9) and even to those who are being saved (1:14). Paul, however, had little interest in explaining his theology of angels at this point but rather stated that even the claim of an angelic visitation was not grounds to alter the message of the gospel—such an angel deserved God’s curse. Not only did Paul proclaim a curse on any human being or superterrestrial angelic messenger who might alter the gospel, but he also specifically included himself as a potential object of this curse if he should present a different gospel. However, Paul also stated unambiguously that the Galatians had received the correct traditions concerning the gospel. Unfortunately, the Galatians had not been faithful to this gospel but had adopted counterfeit ideas.

Paul concluded this section by forcing the Galatians to face the issue of his own integrity. Did he merely manipulate words to gain human status or praise? Paul asked in two ways whether the reader supposed that he was actually trying to score popularity points with people or with God. If the reader had any doubt that the answer should be “no,” it would be removed by the end of the epistle as it became clear that it was Paul’s opponents who were seeking adulation, not Paul. Instead, Paul’s life had been full of suffering for Jesus (6:17).

In short, Paul was a God-pleaser, not a people-pleaser. The expression “win the approval of people” translates the Greek word peithō [TG3982, ZG4275] (persuade), which was associated with a rhetorical strategy that was viewed negatively by many ancients as a contorted and deceptive manner of speaking (Betz 1979: 54-55). Calling Paul a people-pleaser would be to say that Paul was an insincere flatterer, but Paul completely denied using such manipulative tactics. As a servant of Christ, he was determined to follow Christ’s example of humility (cf. 2:20; 5:24; 6:2).

The force of this section was to charge the Galatians and their teachers with a major deviation from the gospel that merited divine condemnation. This section also made it absolutely clear that the Galatian problem did not reside with Paul, who had faithfully delivered the authentic Good News to them even as he had received it. Therefore, neither the original message nor the messenger could be held responsible for the Galatians’ having become turncoats. They were therefore liable to come under the curse Paul pronounced.