lategan (1988) - is paul defending his apostleship in galatians

8/17/2019 Lategan (1988) - Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians

1/21

New Testament Studieshttp://journals.cambridge.org/NTS

Additional services for New Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms 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?. NewTestament 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


2/21

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 06 Apr 2016 IP address: 147.142.186.54

New Test.

Stud. vol.

34,1988, pp. 411-430

BERNARD LATEGAN

IS PAUL DEFENDING HIS APOSTLESHIP IN GALATlANSr

TH E FUN CTION OF GALATIANS

1.11-12

AND 2.1&-20

IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PAUL'S ARGUMENT

1.

INTRODUCTION

In recent research, the claim ha s been made th at Paul's statem ents

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 th a t Gala tians ha s also suffered from a different kind of misread-

ing, 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 pur-

pose,

a number of arguments will be presented relating to the

function of Gal 1. 10—11 and 2. 20, both critical tra ns itions in th e

structure of the letter. These arguments are based on a pragmatic

analys is of the let ter as a whole, which cannot be discussed he re in

any detail. It should be stressed, however, tha t for the determining

of the rhe torical function of any subsection of the letter, an analysis

of the en tire text a s a communicative unity is essen tial. 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', N TS

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: Pa ul's Letter to the G alatians as a

http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/


3/21


412 BERNARD LATEGAN

would like to take responsibility for the flood of rhetorical studies

which has since appeared , is ano ther 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 develop-

ments in modern literary theory and especially work relating to

the pragmatic dimension of texts. NT research can benefit from

bo th the se app roac hes . A gre at dea l 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

sta tem en t concerning the latter is dependent on an as clear as poss-

ible un de rs tan ding of the text as intended for its original reade rs -

and , therefore, (in the case of Ga latians) 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 re-

stricted 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 perspec-

tives.

2.2 Very illuminating for our purpose is Betz's remark that Gal-

at ians ,

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. Hub-

ner, '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) 33—40. Further: M. Bunker, Briefformular und

rhetorische Disposition

im 1. Korin-

therbrief (GThA 28; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck, 1983); C. Forbes, Comparison, Self-praise

and Irony: Paul's Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric

1

, NTS 32 (1986) 1-

30;

W. Wuellner 'Greek Rhetoric and Pauline Argumentation', Early Christian Litera-

ture 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 Argu-

mentation 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 B rief des

Apostels

Paulus an die Ge-

meinden in Galatien (Miinchen: Kaiser, 1987) 1—4.



4/21


PAUL'S APOS TLES HIP 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, an ticipates m uc h of

what consequently has emerged from a reader-oriented approach

to NT texts. In an im portant 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

au thor's side of the communication to the recipient's, but th e possi-

bility of multiple receptions (the original letter situation, the first

rereading [e.g. Eph esus], the presen t reader), places further pr es s-

ure on discovering the communicative th ru st of the text. It is in th is

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 th a t

any reconstruction of the original real readers of biblical texts is

dependent on a prior encounter between the text and the present

read er in which the meaning potential of the tex t is actualized. Our

entrance to a first century text is via a twentieth century reading.

Once the critical function of the reading process ha s been acknowl-

edged, 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 pragm atic 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 unde rstand the role of the au th or

better and the way in which he communicates with his reader.

This has led to a redescription of the audience (or readership

4

), as

1

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 H is 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 hermen-

eutical debate',

Neotestamentica

18 (1984) 4.

4

On the relationship between written and oral communication, see notes 4 and 5 on page

415 below.



5/21


4 1 4 BERNARD LATEGAN

those whom the auth or 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

wri ter

can

comm unicate w ith

readers whom

he or she has

never

met or

does

not

know person-

ally, provided that

the

wri ter h as

a

gen eral idea of the ir situation,

their a t t i tudes

and

their expec tations.

For the

interpretation

of

Galatians this

is of

pa rtic ul ar significance, because

in the

intense

discussion

of

Pa ul's 'opponents'

the

tendency

is

always

to

identify

them directly with specific historical persons

or

groups.

2

This does

not deny th a t they were pe rson s of flesh and blood, but the exegete

should always be aware th at such an historical identification de-

pends on

an

interme diate ste p, th at is, on

a

reconstruction of Pau l's

construct of his audience. From Paul's statements, his arguments,

adm onitions, curses and bless ings w e infer w hat would be convin-

cing

to his audience, wha t would sway them , w hat Pau l supposed

would

be

reasonable

to

th em , w h a t common ground existed

be-

tween 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 w ha t

we

know

of the

historical

persons involved and can attempt

an

historical identification,

as far

as th e evidence allows us to do so.

2.4 Signals

to the

reader operate

on

various levels of the text.

For

the purpose of analy sis, tex t ling uistics usually distinguishes be-

tween the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels.

3

The com-

peten t writer (and this certainly applies to the au thor of Galatians)

makes full use of the syntacto-semantic possibilities of language to

achieve the desired rhe toric al effect. These rhetorical feature s 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

deter-

mine the background and training

of

a specific author and so forth.

In

the

case

of

Galat ians,

the

pragmatic intent

of

the text

is un-

deniable, th at

is the

way

in

which P au l

is

presupposing

a

reaction

1

Cf. W. Wuellner, 'Reading Romans in Context

1

(Paper read in the SNTS Seminar on the

Role of the Reader, Gottingen 1987) 3; C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhet-

oric. 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.



6/21


PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS 4 1 5

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 Pau l uses to achieve his rhet-

orical and pragmatic goals, presents us with a further compli-

cation. Epistolography and rhetoric should not be confused and the

relationship between them is in urgent need of further investi-

gation 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 th e way in which language is used to be per-

suasive. In other words, rhetorical effect can be achieved by a

variety of strategies and devices,

inter alia

by using the lette r form.

In Galatians we have the interesting situation that already in

the formal ep istolary conventions, which serves as th e 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 Problem s arise when rhetoric is restric ted to the context of oral

delivery in a 'live' situation. No doubt rhetoric was first and fore-

most developed as an

ars bene dicendi

w ith 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 avail-

able only in the situation of the pronunciatio.

3

The absence/

presence of the sender represents a special problem in epistolo-

graphy.

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).



7/21



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

audiences.

1

Although the relationship between oral and w ritt en

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 tex ts. This is especially

tru e in th e case of Galatians.

2.7 In th e 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

chap ters of th e letter. As far as the rhetorical str uc tu re is con-

cerned, B etz's analy sis will be followed in broad term s.

2

At the same

t ime,

some of his conclusions will be tested from a pragmatic per-

spective.

3. READING GALATIANS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE

OF APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY

3.1 To illustrate some aspects of a reader oriented approach to

Galatia ns, we tak e a s 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 correspon-

dence 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

im portan t them e in Pauline theology. The question is whether this

is the dominant issue in Galatians. The preoccupation with apos-

tolic status is part of a long tradition which goes as far back as

Chrysos tom

4

and was given further impetus by Lightfoot who,

1

Cf. Hartman, 'On Reading', 139; Hester, 'Rhetoric

1

, 387; R. W. Funk, Language, Her-

meneutic

and

Word

o f

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 unchal-

lenged. 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 1—4.

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.



8/21



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. H e rightly ins ists

that Paul's letters 'are to be understood against the background of

their specific occasion

1

.

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 res trictive move tak es p lace - 'polemi-

cal'

is taken to mean a defence of Paul's apostolic status.

3

The

problem w ith this emphasis on the person of Pa ul and his authority

becomes clear in Schiitz's subsequent analysis of Gal 1. 6-9 . He ha s

to concede that the connection between the person of the apostle

and the gospel is not at all prominent in these verses. 'Here the

arg um en t does not move from defending P au l's own claim of apos-

tolic 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 n arra tive sections which follow lat er in these chap-

ters 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 underm ining his own thesis.

7

3.2 The difficulties encountered by Schiitz are characteristic of

any in terp reta tion of Gal 1—2 which assu m es th a t th e m ain issue

in these chapters is the defence of Paul's apostolic authority. The

fact remains th at 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 a nd to analy se 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.

2

J. H. Schiitz, Paul and the Anatom y of Apostolic Authority (Cambridge: Cam bridge Uni-

versity, 1975) 3. For another good statement of the apostleship position, cf. K. Kertelge, 'Apo-

kalypsis Jesou Christou (Gal 1, 12), Neues Testam ent und Kirche. Fur Rudolf Schnacken-

burg.

(Hrsg. J. Gnilka; Freiburg: Herder 1974)

266-81 ,

who nonetheless stresses the close

relationship between gospel and apostleship.

3

S c h u t z , P a u / , 1 2 7 .

4

Schtitz , PauZ, 118.

5

Schiitz, Paul, 123.

6

Sc h u t z , /

>

a u / , 1 2 1 .

7

For a further critique of Schutz's position, cf. Hester, 'Rhetoric', 393 note 25.

8

anoazoXoc, an d de riva tive s: 1. 1; 1. 17; 1. 19; 2. 8. eixxyyeXiov an d de riv ati ve s: 1. 6; 1. 7; 1. 8

(2x); 1.

9;

1.

11 (2x); 1.16; 1. 2 3; 2. 2; 2. 5; 2. 7; 2 .14; 4 .13 .



9/21


418 BERNARD LATEGAN

direct and indirect instructions for the reader incorporated in the

text. Prereq uisite for such an und ertakin g 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 gath ers 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,

wh ich form the key to the function of the n ar ra tiv e sections in

chapters 1 and 2 and their connection with the res t 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 struc-

tures 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

fun da m en tal opposition between God and ma n which forms th e

presupposition of Paul's whole argument. In the very first verse of

the letter, this contrast which occurs in various forms throughout

th e le tt er, i s announ ced in a double ch iastic form: &v9pcbjtcov . . .

&v0po>7to\)/'lT|ao\) Xpiaxov . . . 9eoi). This fe atu re has la rgely 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 , Fest-

schrift 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) 525-2 8; Smit, 'Pau lus', 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.



10/21



neglected by exegetes. An actantial analysis confirms the import-

ance 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-God

1

contrast,

2

and cor-

rectly stresses the relationship between 1.1 and

1.11—12,

but fails

to see the link w ith

2.

20 (which we sha ll 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 under-

stand the underlying tension between God and man as a tension

which primarily has to do with Pa ul's apostleship. Such an unde r-

standing 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 inter-

pretations is

1.11-12,

which calls for closer exam ination.

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 bas is upon which Paul's gospel, as well as h is 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 con-

firms the key function of

1.11—12

within the first two cha pters , bu t

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 Didache

1

, Zelf-

standig geloven. Studies

voor

Jaap

Firet

(red. F. H. Kuiper, J. S. van Nijen en J. C. Schreu-

der; Kampen: Kok, 1987) 156, who also emphasizes the antithesis between God and man in

1.11-12.

3


4


5 Baarda, 'Openbaring', 155.



11/21



gospel as preached by Paul.

1

The gospel does not conform to hum an

criteria, does not take human considerations into account. It does

not function in a human way, does not honour human preferences.

Th is is w ha t d istinguishes it from the 'other gospel'. Pa ul is m aking

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. 11—12 it is important to realize that the

crypt ic form ula ou Kaxcc av9pcorcov is connected to a whole web of

inte rre late d ideas which reaches to the hear t 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 Pa ul's gospel

3

and understood as expressing a negative attitude towards human

tradition. The reason for this tendency is to be found in the follow-

ing verse, where Paul explains his initial statement (cf. the second

yd

p

in 12a) by saying:

ov>8e Y&P £Y


12/21



In his analysis of this section,

1

Baarda argues that th e two negative

clauses introduced by ot>8e and oine should be tak en as a paren-

thesis and t hat the real contrast is to be found in l l a and 12c, th at

is ,

between ot> Kara avOpomov and

aXka

8 i' a7ioKaA,-6\|/£co


13/21


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

pre-

occupation 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

t ru th

of

his gospel.

But

these verses also have

a

specific theological function

in so far as

they strengthen

the God/

m an c on trast. Somebody who

is

willing

to

ut ter

a

divine curse over

those

who

differ from

him,

certainly

is not

acting

in a

very diplo-

matic

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 th e particip le TI

in

these questions. Lyons

has

argued exten-

sively that

the

-q

in 10a has

disjunctive force, thereby contrasting

the pleasing

of man or God as two

alternative possibilities.

2

Then

the inte rpre tation would be: Paul

is

not trying

to

appeal/strive

to

please

men, but

God. Betz,

on the

other hand, un derstands TI

as a

copulative, expecting

an

emphatic denial

to

both questions

—

'the

'persuasion

of

God'

m ust be interpreted

as a

'polemical definition

of

magic

and

religious quackery

1

.

3

The

implication

of the

rhetorical

question would then

be

that Paul

is

neither

a man-, nor a God-

pleaser.

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

disjunc-

tive,

m arking

the

pleasing of man

as a

negative possibility. The real

contrast therefore lies

in

10c, which

is the

direct opposite

of

being

Ch rist 's slave. W hether

the

first

-q in 10a is

taken

as

disjunctive

or

as copulative,

the

basic contrast w ith being

a

true servan t of Christ

remains.

The

alternative,

in

case of a disjunctive inte rpre tation,

is a

1

Betz,

Galatians

25,

52-^1.

2 Lyons, Autobiography , 136—44.

3

Betz, Galatians 55.



14/21


PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS 423

'man-pleaser';

in

case of a copulative in terp retatio n,

the

alternative

is

a

man ipulator

(not a

servant)

of

man

and

God.

In

this sense

the

curse

in

verses

8 and

9,

and

its implication

in

10, prepa res the scene

for

the

decisive argum ent

in

verses 11-12 .

4.2.5 Gal 1. 11-12 once again:

Joop Smit

has

recently published

a

number

of

rhetorical studies

on

G alatians, including

a

narra t ive

analysis of chapters 1

and

2.

1

On the s treng th of his analysis, he

has

serious doubts about

the

importance which comm entators us ua lly

attach

to

1.11—12

and

concludes that the idea that chapters 1

and 2

are

a

further explanation

of 1.

11—12,

is in

need

of

serious recon-

sideration.

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

m aintained with

any

degree

of confidence. Paul clearly

is

concerned with

the

contents

of his

preaching. Therefore, Smit

is

quite right th at Gal 1

and 2

cannot

be

explained

in

terms

of

origin

or the

apostolic status

of

Paul. This

section serves

a

theological purpose,

and

tha t

is to

give

an

il lus-

trat ion

of the

premise

of

1.

12

from real life. Ba arda comes ve ry

close

to a

correct formulation

of

this theological purpose when

he

says that

for

Paul

the

gospel

is the new

perspective

on the

signifi-

cance

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

paul ine

autobiography, Lyons gives special attention

to the

na r ra t ive

sections.

He

comes

to the

correct conclusion that

1. 13-2. 21 is

a subs tantiation

'of his

claim

in 1.

11—12 concerning

the

n a t u r e

and origin

of his

gospel

1

.

5

But his

further conclusion,

viz.

t h a t

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', 161—2. 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.



15/21



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 w hethe r th at is w ha t lies behind the narrative sections in

Gal 1-2, a s 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 h is efforts ag ai n to play down the prominence of

Paul.3

To prevent any m isun ders tand ing on this point, it must be stated

very clearly th a t 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 legiti-

m ate, bu t also essential for our discipline.

4

W hat inte rests u s her e, 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 func-

tion these narrative sections have for the development of Paul's

a rgument .

In th is respect, Betz's descrip tion 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 P au l's argum entative procedure here.

After 1. 11—12, he is offering tw o 'case stud ies ' to illus tra te the

claim that the gospel is not Kcexa avGpcorcov. The use of narrative is

1

Lyons, Autobiography,

171.

2

Lyons, Autobiography, 164-70. Cf. also Betz, Galaterbrief 3.

3 In a recent study ('Idealbiographisches

1

- cf. note 2, page 418), Werner Stengel discusses

the im porta nt difference between 'Biographie' and 'Idealbiographie', with special

reference to the narrative sections in Gal 1 and 2. He shows that 'Idealbiographie' (in con-

tras t 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 Hei-

denapostel

I [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck, 1980] 74), Stengel correctly understands the biblio-

graphical references in Gal 1-2 as 'erzahlende Argumentation' in support of the claim

made in 1. 11—12 ('Idealbiographisches

1

, 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.



16/21



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 Pau l'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-encompas-

sing 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 sal-

vation by Pau l and th e Galatians is a vivid illustration of this tru th:

'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 auth-

orities 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 expec-

tation, in disregard of hum an stan dard s, without hum an m erits -

by grace alone, as new creation

(KOUVTI KXIOIC

6. 15c)'.

4

This de-

scription 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 Galatian s 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.



17/21


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 un de r a ttack in the first place.

The contrast with Jerusalem cannot be explained in terms of dif-

ferences 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 fore-

most illustrated by Paul's conversion from persecutor to preacher

an d his calling as apostle. Tha t is also true of the conversion of the

G ala tians, who were called a s gentiles. The sam e them e occurs re-

peatedly 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 stretch es across the whole letter.

4.3 Gal 2. 19-20

O ur contention t h a t Pa ul is ma king a theological, not an historical

or bibliographical point in Gal 1-2,

1

needs to be tested a t one further

crucial point, namely 2. 19-20. In these verses the transition to

cha pters 3 and 4 and the rest of the letter take s 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 ab le to provide an acceptable answer to this problem. Let

us,

therefore, briefly review the structu re of the two chapters :

1

So correctly Gaventa, 'Ga latians 1 and 2', 312.

2

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



18/21


PAUL'S APOSTLESHIP IN GALATIANS 427

1.1—12:

Introduction arg um en t

1.13—2.10:

Paul and the leaders na rrat ive

2.1 1-1 6: Paul and Peter narr ative

2.

17-21:

Conclusion ar gu m en t

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 the sis which forms th e basis of Pau l'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 th a t the final

section in chapter 2 is linked with strong bonds both to the pre-

ceding and the following pa rts of the letter. We shall examine these

in turn.

First of all, the antithetical structure, which is so typical of the

preced ing sections, is continued and even intensified. Bere nyi

describes it as a verse which 'abounds in antitheses and para-

doxes,

like all the preceding passages '.

1

The an tithes is between God

and man, between the self and Christ, is indeed reaching break-

ing point. Paul's own persecution of the church, Peter's

lapsus

in

Antioch, the G alatians ' fickleness in turn ing to anothe r gospel

—

all

these examples illustrate the strength of the resistance to God's

grace, how ingrained the notion of m an is to live by his own term s.

In th e no rmal course of thing s, the contrast between God and m an

seems insurmountable. Therefore its resolution calls for extra-

ordinary m easu res, which is in line with the un usu al n atu re of the

gospel. The tension is resolved in a dramatic denouement: the

self-

existence 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 imp ortant to note tha t, a t this stage

of the argument (verse 18 onwards), a transition from the personal

T to a universal T has taken place.

2

In term s of the theory of argu-

mentation, Paul is addressing a universal audience. At the same

t ime,

his argument is not wholly metaphoric or a-historical, it is

related to his own experience - and even more importan tly - it ha s

its basis in the death of Christ on the cross. How exactly this con-

nection is to be understood, is disputed. For Paul the beginning of

1

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

2

Cf. Betz, Galatians 122: 'The parad igmatic I '; W. Sch m itha ls, 'Judaisten in Ga latia',

ZNW

74 (1983) 4; 'der uberindividuelle Ich

1

; Bergnyi, 'Gal. 2,20', 529.



19/21


428 BERNARD LATEGAN

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

Being crucified with C hrist, 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 illustra tes only the theologi-

cal point he is making about the nature of the gospel. The orien-

tation to Christ goes back to 1. 4,

1

where Paul chooses - among

many other christological attributes - exactly the phrase which

set s the tone for the first two chapters and which anticipates w hat

he explains in 2. 20: Grace and peace come from God and Christ,

'. . . who gave h imself because of our sins , in order t hat 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 w ith 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

he r thes is th a t Gal 2. 20 is not a pre-pauline formula, but a ph rase

shaped by Paul himself. For the purposes of our argument, this is

not the issue. Whatever the difference between 8(8coni and Ttapoc-

8{8a>ni might be, the structural link between 1. 4 and 2. 20 can

hardly be denied.

It would ap pe ar the n th at 2 . 20 is linked to Paul's preceding argu-

ment in two ways

—

structurally and content-wise. Structurally,

th e link is with 1. 4, which an ticipates what is to follow in 2. 20 and

which already prepares the scene for the focus on Christ, not Paul,

th at is, unde rlining the

theological

rather than the biographical or

personal nat ur e of Paul's argum ent.

Regarding content, the tension between God and man is sus-

tained righ t throug h the argum ent up to 2. 20, where the dram atic

denouement takes place and where Paul can show that the un-

usual nature of the gospel implies that true human existence is

1

Cf. Schmithals, 'Judaisten

1

, 40.

2

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



20/21



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

opposition and resistance to God.

If

2.

20 ha s clear links with the preceding par t of the lette r and

indeed highlights the integral and consistent nature of Paul's argu-

ment, how does it link up w ith what follows in 3-4 and 5-6?

Betz iden tifies verses 19—20 as the

expositio

where Paul presents

the basic elem ents 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 s tatem ents:

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, bu t Christ lives in m e.

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 formula

1

, being the quintessence of Paul's personal credo: To

live for God sum s up Pau l's concept of Chr istia n existence, soteri-

ology 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 th e preceding and following sections of the le tter is to be found

in Betz's fourth statement (20b).

We have already referred to Paul's extensive use of theological

'abbreviations

1

.

3

These code-like formulations are important link-

ing 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 a t strateg ic 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 the-

ological and ethical sections which follow in

3—4

and 5—6:

tou dyanricavTo^ ue is an abbreviated description of the ethical

1

Betz,

Galatians 121.

2

Betz, Galatians 122.

3

Cf.

note

2,

page

420

above.



21/21

430

BERNARD LATEGAN

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

and w hich forms the content of chapters 5 and 6.

KOU

7tapa56vxoq eoruxov vrcep e|xou desc ribes the theologica l or

soteriological basis for the Christian existence and its ethical con-

ten t, and is the subject matter of chapters 3 and 4.

Therefore, 2. 20 not only links 1-2 in an integrated way to 3—4

and 5-6, revealing an amazing unity of construction and content,

but appeals to Christ in a double way: his cross not only makes

th e new ex istence of the believer soteriologically possible, bu t a t the

same time demonstrates the ethical content of the gospel by the

style of th is 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 'Um-

wertung aller Werten', which does not devaluate human existence

or suppress th e

self,

but , for the first tim e, sets hum ans free to dis-

cover the rea l natu re 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

re turn .

lategan (1988) - is paul defending his apostleship in galatians

Documents