Tradition and Revelation - Galatians

7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians

1/23

[/SATT 53 (1994)65-86]

TRADITION, REVELATION AND GOSPEL:

A STUDYIN GALAHANS"

Michael Winger

800 West End Avenue, Apt 9ENewYork, NY10025-5467

In the middle of the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Galatians, at

the beginning of the autobiographical account which itself begins

Paul's defense ofthe gospel he preached to the Galatians, Paul sets out

two distinctive ways in which he might have received that gospel: by

tradition, or by revelation. These appear to Paul to exclude one

another, and he invokes tradition only to dismiss it. declare to you,

brothers', he says solemnly, in Gal. 1.11-12, 'that the gospel I pro

claimed is not human; for I did not receive it from any human, nor

was I taught it, but it came through a revelation ofJesus Christ'.1

This contrast between tradition and revelation has been much com

mented on.2

Paul's treatment of it here is not easily reconciled with

1. In translating from the New Testament I have usually followed the RSV, but Ihave altered it freely whenever I thought I could better express the sense ofthe text

2. Besides the commentaries, see especially K. Chamblin, 'Revelation andTradition in the Pauline Euangelion\ WTJ48 (1986), pp. 1-16; R.K.Y. Fung,'Revelation and Tradition: the Origins ofPaul's Gospel', EvQ57 (1985), pp. 23-41;H.D. Betz, 'Excursus: Conversion, Revelation, and Tradition', in Galatians(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), pp. 64-66; G. Bornkamm, 'The Revelation ofChrist to Paul on the Damascus Road and Paul's Doctrine ofJustification andReconciliation: AStudy in Galatians , in R. Banks (ed.), Reconciliation andHope(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 90-103; G.E. Ladd, 'Revelation and Traditionin Paul', in W.W. Gasque and R.P. Martn (eds.), Apostolic Tradition and the


2/23

66 Journalfor the Study of the NewTestament53 (1994)

his formally similar remarks in 1 Cor. 15.1-3, where heagain

beginning with the solemn declare to you, brothers' and speaking of

'the gospel which I proclaimed to you'proceeds to say that he

'delivered' to the Corinthians what he 'also received': and , technical language for the transmission of

traditions.3

But we do nt need 1 Corinthians 15 to alert us to the issue raised

by Galatians 1. For if we think only of Paul and the Galatians, it

should occur to us that however Paul received the gospel, surely it

was as tradition that he delivered it to the Galatians! And if this is so,

what is the place of revelation in Paul's argument to the Galatians?

Why should it matter to them that someone (be it Paul or 'those whowere apostles before him' [Gal. 1.17]) claims revelation as authority

for the gospel, when by its very nature this is evidence inaccessible to

the Galatians, who receive the gospel in human words, on human lips?

If some issue is raised about the veracity of Paul's accountif Paul's

indignant protest in Gal. 1.20, 'Before God, I do not lie', reflects a

questions actually under discussion in Galatiano revelation to Paul

will lay that issue to rest. In such a case it would seem necessary for

Paul to argue on the basis of something which the Galatians themselves know; and how do the Galatians know anything to the point,

except what they have received from the apostles by tradition?

Thus many modern writers find that, Gal. 1.11-12 notwithstanding,

tradition has a fundamental place in Paul's thought. Betz goes so far as

to say that 'Galatians as a whole was written to be a defense of Paul's

Gemeinden (WMANT, 16; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965);. Wegenast, DasVerstndnis der Tradition bei Paulus und in den Deuteropaulinen(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962); L. Goppelt, 'Tradition nachPaulus', KD 4 (1958), pp. 213-33; W. Baird, 'What Is the Kerygma? A Study ofI Cor 15:3-8 and Gal 1:11-17', JBL 57 (1957), pp. 181-91; O. Cullmann, 'TheTradition', in The Early Church (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), pp. 59-99;L. Cerfaux, 'La tradition selon saint Paul*, in Recueil Lucien Cerf aux (Gembloux:Duculot, 1954-62), , pp. 253-63.

3. These two reciprocal terms each have a varietyofsenses, but when usedtogether theygenerallyrefer to the deliveryand reception oftraditions. SeeBAGD,

s.v. 3, 2..; J.P. Louw and E.A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon (2 vols.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 33.237,238;


3/23

WINGER Tradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Study in Galatians 67

gospel as his reading of the tradition.. . \4 and Cullmann maintains thatChristian tradition is actually 'on the same level' as revelation, because'the exalted Christ himself stands as transmitter behind the apostles

who transmit his words and works'.5

I shall argue that such views miss the point ofGal. 1.11-12 and itssharp contrast between tradition and revelation. We can see this, andunderstand Paul's treatment ofthe gospel as related to tradition andrevelation, when we address a series ofinterrelated questions. Whatdoes Paul mean by 'gospel',6 'tradition'7 and 'revelation*? How dothese terms relate to one another? And are their relations always thesame, or are they one thing for apostles such as Paul and something

else for other believers?

These are not new questions. I have noted that there is a considerable literature dealing with them, or some ofthem, which is focusedespecially on the effort to harmonize Gal. 1.11-12 and 1 Cor. 15.1-3.I want to take a different approach. I intend to pursue Paul's treatmentof these issues in Galatians itself, especially Gal. 1.11-16. In this wayhints will be found that have been generally neglected; applied tomaterial elsewhere in Paul's letters, including 1 Corinthians IS, these

4. Betz, GalaanSy p. 65 (emphasis added).

5. Cullmann, Tradition', p. 69.

6. This customary English translation of is open to criticism. First,- is 'good news', and its use in a general sense long pre-dates

Christianity. English 'gospel', although evidently derived from the Old English for'good news', now means essentially the Christian gospel; all other meanings are

derivative from this (so O ED, s.v.). Thus the general sense has entirely vanished

from our usage, while it probably remained in early Christian usage. Secondly, is often associated with the cognate term , 'to announcegood news'. This association can be preserved, however awkwardly, byexpressions

like 'the good news ofwhich I announced the good news' (Gal. 1.11); but Englishhas no verbal form of 'gospel'.

For these reasons I sometimes render by 'good news'; but since'gospel' is so entrenched in the modern vocabulary, I use it too. The two terms are

equivalent

7. 'Tradition' is also a problematic translation, since for many modern readers

this term bears a strong negative connotation, reflected in usages like the oppositionof 'tradition-bound' to 'innovative'. But there is no reason to thinkthat the Greekterm had this negative import for Paul or the Galations; although Paul


4/23

68 Journalfor the Studyofthe NewTestament53 (1994)

hints will help to fashion a coherent picture of some central elements

of Paul's thought. Four principal theses will emerge from this

discussion:

1. Paul understands the passing on of tradition to be a human

mechanism, no different in Christianity than in Judaism. The problem

with Jewish tradition is not that it is Jewish but that it is tradition.

2. Paul understands the gospel not as a form of words but as an

event; therefore, it is misleading to speak of the gospel as being

handed on by tradition. While the gospel may be described by various

forms of words, and these forms may be handed on traditionally, this

handing on of various traditions does not in itself constitute delivery

of the one gospel.

3. Rather, Paul believes that the gospel is only apprehended

through divine power; this is so not only for the apostles, but for all

the saints.

4. Generally, Paul speaks of the apprehension of the gospel in

other terms: he does not usually say that his hearers have 'received the

gospel', but that they have been 'called'. Both expressions refer, how

ever, to the same event, so that call reveals to us the meaning of

receivedthe gospel.

Having presented these theses I will finally show how they allow us

to reconcile Galatians 1 and 1 Corinthians 15.

I

Let us now turn to the texts. I have already quoted Gal. 1.11-12, but

here we shall look at it more carefully, beginning with a more literal

translation:

For I make known to you, brothers, that the gospel announced by me [ * ] is not human [ -]; for I myself

8did not receive it from a human, nor was I taught it,

but through a revelation ofJesus Christ ['

9].

8. Since here is not grammaticallynecessary, it is probablyemphatic; soE.D. Burton, A Critical and Exegetcal Commentary on the Epistle of St Paul to the


5/23

WINGERTradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Study in Galatians 69

What is at issue here? The first point to be observed about this passage

is that it develops a theme introduced at the very beginning of this

letter: not human, but divine. According to Gal. 1.1 Paul is an apostleneither from humans nor through humans, but through Jesus Christ

and God the father; according to 1.10, Paul does not wish to please

humans, but God. This theme is placed in context by Gal. 1.6-9, in

which we learn that the Galatians are turning away from the good

news that Paul preachedgood news which Paul links in 1.6 to 'the

one who called you in the grace of Christ', a phrase that, on the gen

eral evidence of Pauline usage, almost certainly means God.10

The

balance of the letter elucidates what is meant by this 'turning away':the submission of Gentile Christians to at least some elements of

Jewish law, most conspicuously circumcision.11

'The good news

announced by me' thus excludes Gentile observance of Jewish law; on

what grounds, I shall take up shortly.

Verses 6-9 also clarify a point that is not so clear in vv. 11-12:

whether 'good news announced by me' is some particular gospel

among others. According to v. 7, it is not: 'there is no other'. It is

plain here, if we did not already know it from other early Christianliterature, that 'gospel' has a technical sense; not just any good news is

meant, but the good news. As Friedrich notes, Paul generally uses

'gospel' in the absolute; 'he does not need any noun or adj. to define it.

The readers know what it is.'12

This, however, appears to be some

thing of an overstatement. No doubt the Galatians know in a general

way what gospel is referred to, yet there does appear to be a question

as to exactly what that gospel is, or at least as to what it means: for

10. When in Paul has an explicit subject, it is always God: Rom. 4.17;8.30 (2 times); 1 Cor. 7.15, 17; 1 Thess. 2.12; 4.7. Gal. 1.15 is almost as explicit;although there is probably not original (so Burton, Galatians, pp. 51-52;

B. Metzger, A TextualCommentary on the GreekNew Testament [NewYork:United Bible Societies, 1975], p. 590 [minority report ofMetzger and Wikgren]), itis an accurate gloss.

11. On this the commentators are in general agreement Keytexts in Galatiansinclude 5.2 ('See, I, Paul, I tell you that ifyou are circumcised, Christ will be ofno

help to you') and 6.13 ('The circumcisers do not keep the lawthemselves, but theywish you to be circumcised... ').


6/23

70 Journal for the Studyof the NewTestament53 (1994)

apparently someone is telling the Galatians that the gospel, far from

ruling out circumcision, actually requires it. Nevertheless, this dis

agreement makes it the more striking that Paul never says, 'You are

being told that the gospel is X, but in truth it is Y\ Some remark like

this would certainly help us, and would it not have helped the

Galatians also? If 'gospel' has been confused, why not clarify it? We

will need to consider carefully why Paul makes no such clarifying

remark.

Turning from gospel to tradition, we see in 1.11-12 a contrast with

1.9. In 1.12 Paul asserts that he did not 'receive' () the

gospel from humans, but in 1.9 he speaks of those who 'preach agospel contrary to what you received* (' ). There

is no necessary inconsistency here, however, for the two phrases could

be reconciled in several ways: (1) the gospel might come to Paul by

revelation but to the Galatiansby tradition; (2) perhaps the Galatians

'received' the gospel not from humans but from God; (3) in one of

these verses 'received' might not be used in the technical sense related

to 'tradition'. When we return to these possibilities below, it will be

seen that 2 and 3 merge. Some light on what Paul has in mind will beshed by Gal. 1.13-17, to be taken up below.

My last key term here is 'revelation' ().13

Its use in

Gal. 1.12 is obscured by the absence of a verb in the phrase in which

it appears. We may take 'through the revelation of Christ Jesus' to

refer back two verbs to 'receive': receivedthe gospel through reve

lation';14

in this case 'receive' loses its technical sense. An alternative

is 'reveal' (), suggested by the noun 'revelation';15

if the

construction were complete it would be 'revealed through a revelation', which is redundant but similar to 'the good news of which I

announced the good news' in 1.11. This question admits no final

answer; certainly the thought 'received the gospel (by revelation)' is

suggested here, but equally certainly it is not expressed. Perhaps Paul

wished to avoid saying that he 'received' the gospel in any sense,

because of the verb's association with tradition, but did not want to

13. Like 'gospel*, 'revelation' has a verbal form, , found in


7/23

WINGERTradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Studyin Galatians 71

burden his sentence with still another verb whose meaning would have

been similar.16

To pursue these terms further we must now pursue Paul's argumentfurther. In vv. 13-16 Paul proceeds,

For you have heard ofmy conduct when I was in Judaism: that beyond

limit I persecuted the congregation ofGod and devastated it, and I

advanced in Judaism beyond manyofmy contemporaries, so exceedingly

zealous was I for the traditions ofmy ancestors [

]. But when it pleased the one who formed me in mymother's womb and called me through his grace to reveal []

his son in me in order that I might announce the good news concerning

him [ ] among the Gentiles, from that point I didnot confer withfleshand blood...

Here the contrast between human tradition and divine revelation,

prominent in vv. 11 and 12, is repeated; but here the tradition spoken

of is Jewish rather than Christian. Most scholars interested in early

Christian tradition have assumed it to be different in kind from Jewish

tradition;17

it will be well for us to inquire whether Paul shared this

assumption.To answer this question we need to look more carefully at vv. 13-

17. What is Paul's line of thought here, and how does it connect with

w . 11 and 12? From 1.13 to 2.14 Paul speaks of his past, and 1.13-17

begins this account.18

The account falls into four parts: 1.13-14 tells

of Paul's life 'in Judaism'; 1.15-24 tells of the first fourteen years

after 'the revelation of [God's] son in [Paul]'; 2.1-10 tells of a trip

to Jerusalem, focusing on a meeting with Peter,19

James and John;

16. Asecond ambiguity in 'revelation' here lies in the phrase 'ofJesus Christ*;

this might be subjective, 'the revelation Christ gave', or objective, that 'which

revealed Christ'. Verses 15-16, 'When [God]... was pleased to reveal his son.

showthat Paul had the objective meaning in mind, but they do not exclude the sub

jective meaning; Paul's ambiguity could be deliberate.

17. This underlies the treatments ofthe authors cited in n. 2, with the notable

exceptions of Wegenast, Betz and perhaps Cullmann. Cullmann remarks

(Tradition*, p. 65), 'The tanna ofthe Jews is replaced bythe apostlosofChrist',

suggesting that the two traditions are parallel; but I think the idea that one replaces theother is not found in Paul.


8/23

72 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 53 (1994)

2.11-14 tells of an encounter with Peter in Antioch.20

Paul's relations

with the leaders in Jerusalem, especially Peter, are a major theme

from LIS to 2.14. Paul stresses his independence from these leaders;

he does not deny his contacts and consultations (see especially 2.221),

but when conflict arises that touches on 'the truth of the gospel' (2.5,

14), Paul yields to no one, not even to Peter.

In this we see evidence for Paul's claim in 1.11-12 that the gospel

he preached is not human, being neither received from any human nor

taught; and it is generally agreed that 1.13-2.14 is meant to support

1.11-12.22 To this 1.15-16 provides the keynote: everything follows

from God's 'revelation of his son'. Paul's account in 1.13-14 of his

life in Judaism is the foil for what follows; ruling Paul's life in this

earlier period was no revelation, but 'the ancestral traditions'; every

thing Paul did then is explained as the product of zeal for these tradi

tions; God is not mentioned. Not only was tradition not the source of

the gospel Paul preaches, but tradition was overthrown when the

gospel came.

The use of 'tradition' in v. 14 and of 'revelation' in v. 16 is thus not

incidental to those verses; it is central to Paul's demonstration that thegospel depends on the one rather than the other. Paul means here to

repeat and to emphasize the antithesis of tradition and revelation, and

moreover to present this antithesis within the categories of human and

divine that dominate Galatians from the first verse. In 1.14 the tradi

tions which ruled Paul's past life are described as human: 'of my

ancestors'. In 1.15 the revelation is described as divine: God was the

revealer, God's son was revealed. The primacy of revelation over

tradition, viewed thus, is self-evident.

But what exactly does Paul mean by 'the traditions of my ances

tors'? Various answers have been given, usually narrow: the oral

(2.8). This has recently been questioned by B.D. Ehrman, 'Cephas and Peter*, JBL

109 (1990), pp. 463-74, and defended by D.C. Allison, 'Peter and Cephas: One and

the Same*, JBL 111 (1992), pp. 489-95.

20. It is possible that 2.15-21 is part of this account, continuing Paul's rebuke of

Peter.

21. *... and I put before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, privately to those regarded as leaders, lest I might somehow work (or have worked) in

i '


9/23


law,23

or the particular traditions of the Pharisees,24

or even those of

Paul's own family.25

All ofthese are unlikely. Was it Paul's zeal for

oral law in particular that advanced him beyond his fellows?26

If we

grant that Pharisees had traditions and were moreover especially

zealous,27

did Pharisees mean to be zealous for Pharisaism, or for the

law of God?28

Was there any point at which the Pharisees supposed

that their traditions were in conflict with the law of God, or were

more important than the law?29

Nowhere in Paul's writings does he drawa distinction between the

law and particular interpretations of the law, or suggest that it is

merely some interpretation of the law, not the law itself, which does

not apply to Gentiles.30

When Paul speaks of the traditions of his

23. So Burton, Galatians, p. 48. Josephus (Ant. 13.10.6 297) uses 'ancestral

traditions' ( ) as distinguished from written laws

( ) to describe what the Pharisees hold but the Sadduccees

reject. Nevertheless 'tradition' has a broader import, even in Josephus; see n. 26

below. At least by the time of the Mishnah the simple contrast between written and

oral material was completely inadequate to describe Jewish law; see M.I Gruber,

"The Mishnah as Oral Torah: AReconsideration', JSJ15 (1984), pp. 112-22.24. So F.F. Bruce, The Epistle ofPaulto the Galatians(Exeter: Paternoster

Press, 1982), p. 91; Schlier, Galater, pp. 51-52; J.B. Lightfoot, The Epistle ofPaul

to the Galatians(repr.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), p. 82.

25. G. Schrenk, '', TDNT, V, pp. 1021-22.

26. may be used for written tradition; see 2 Thess. 2.15; Josephus,

Apion, 1.4 20, 1.10 53.

27. Acts 22.3; Josephus, War2.8.14 162, Ant. 17.2.4 41.

28. In the Septuagint 'zeal' is often for God. See generally A. Stumpff, '

.', TDNT, IV, pp. 877-88, 879.29. Ifthe Pharisees drewa distinction, they acknowledged that their traditions

were inferior to the law; see E.P. Sanders, 'Did the Pharisees Have Oral Law?', in

Jewish Law from Jesusto the Mishnah (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity,

1990), pp. 97-130, arguing that rabbinic sources generally distinguish tradition from

law. Usually, however, the distinctions are implicit and subtle, and sometimes there

seems to be no distinction. Thus m. Ab. 1.1: 'Moses received the Law from Sinai

and committed it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the Prophets;

and the Prophets committed it to the men of the Great Synagogue' (H. Danby, The

Mishnah [Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1933], p. 446). Immediately followingthis passage is the Mishnah's classic acknowledgment that it goes beyond Scripture,

butprecisely to protect Scripture: 'They said make a fence around the Law'


10/23

74 Journal for the Studyof the New Testament53 (1994)

ancestors as dominating his life in Judaism, how could he mean any

thing but the very law itself?31

Howelse could the Gentile Galatians

have understood him? Especially must this be so in Galatia, where, as

Paul's letter makes clear, the issue was obedience to die law: testifyto everyone who becomes circumcised, that he is obliged to do the

entire law' (Gal. 5.3).

But if Paul refers to Jewish law as 'tradition', then the relationship

between tradition and God is not a simple one. Granted that Paul's

writings (and especially his letter to Galatians) betray some ambiva

lence about the relation between God and the law, Paul never says that

the law is not God's.32

In another place I have argued that Paul thinks

law defective not because it is not God's, but because it is law; itsuffers from limits essential to law as such.

33Gal. 1.13-14 implies that

it is the same with tradition. Tradition is human by definition; it is

delivered and received by humans, and that is why it is tradition, even

though the tradition may be about God and perhaps even originate

from God. Epistemologically, this is fundamental. What Moses says

may be grounded in a revelation of God to him; but if we receive it

from Moses we receive it as tradition.

Does Paul see Christian tradition in the same way? What would bethe difference? Gal. 1.11-17, in which a claim about tradition relating

to the gospel is supported by an argument dealing with tradition

related to Jewish law, makes a persuasive case that Paul sees no fun

damental distinction between the authority of Jewish tradition and that

of Christian tradition. The supplanting of tradition by revelation

depicted in 1.13-16 therefore cannot be reduced to the replacement of

requirements disappear, so does virtually every specific requirement ofthe law. Soradical a condensation is no mere interpretation; it amounts to a rejection of the legalcharacter oflaw.

31. As in the parallel formulation which Luke attributes to Paul in Acts 22.3: am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated strictly atthe feet ofGamaliel in ourancestrallaw[ ] being zealous forGod [ ]... ' Although this text is not direct evidenceofPaul's thought, the language is close enough to that of Gal. 1.14 to give indirect

evidence of the way in which Paul's words are likelyto have been understood.32. Note especially Paul's obscure remarks in 3,19-20: '[the law] was giventhrough angels by the hand of a mediator Now the mediator is not of one; but God


11/23


Jewish tradition by Christian; tradition as such is subordinated to

something else.34

II

Now let us consider whether we can better identify what Paul means

by 'gospel'. Thus far I have noted that Paul allows only one gospel;

that this gospel came to Paul by revelation, not by tradition; that Paul

evidently assumes that his readers know what the gospel is; that he

does not offer any expression as either content or description of the

gospel.

To these points, general patterns of usage in Paul allow us to add a

basic element. This is the intimate connection between the noun(good

news' ( ) and the cognate verb 'to announce good news'

(). The linkbetween the gospel and the declaration of

the gospel is thus what linguists term 'transparent', present in the

form of the words.35

Good news is not good news if it is not

announced. The point is not only theoretical, for Paul draws on it. In

Gal. 1.11, 1 Cor. 15.1 and 2 Cor. 11.7 the two terms appear in asingle pleonastic phrase: 'the good news which I announced as good

news' (respectively, ' ,

, and

). In two other places the gospel is 'preached'

( [Gal. 2.2; 1 Thess. 2.9]), and in another 'proclaimed'

( [1 Cor. 9.14]).

34. Similarly, R.E. Sturm ('An Exegetical Studyofthe Apostle Paul's Use of theWords Apokalypt/Apokalypsis: The Gospel ofGod's Apocalyptic' [PhD dissertation, Union Theological Seminary, 1983], p. 61); contrast Ebeling (Truth, p. 72)and Betz (Galatians, p. 65), who both regard gospel as proceeding naturally out oftraditionan interpretation that cannot stand in the face of Gal. 1.13-16 and its claimof a decisive break.

On the other hand, this break does not mean that tradition is now inconsequential;

Chamblin ('Revelation', p. 8) rightly observes, 'The revelation ofChrist creates the

need for tradition concerning Christ', and certainly Paul acknowledges such tradition

in 1 Cor. 15. But this does not distinguish Christian from Jewish tradition, whichPaul also acknowledges in its place; note his appeals to Scripture in Gal. 3.6,8,10,


12/23


So the gospel is something which is announced.36

A famous problem

is whether it therefore means some particular form of words used in

the announcement. That Paul used a fixed form seems doubtful, for

none appears in his letters.37

But if the gospel is not a form of words,

then what is it?

Another text from Galatians will be helpful here: 'Foreseeing that

God justifies the Gentiles by faith, Scripture announced the good news

ahead of time [] to Abraham, that "All nations [

]3 8

will be blessed in you"'. Here in Gal. 3.8, quoting what

appears to be a blending of Gen. 12.3 and 18.18,39

we are given the

words through which the good news was announced ahead oftime; yet

it is plain that these words, 'all nations will be blessed in [Abraham]',

are not themselves the gospel, nor those by which the gospel is usually

proclaimed. Paul interprets these words as a predictiona promise

of Christ, and of what will happen when Christ comes: blessingis part

of the good news. To announce the promise of this good news of

Christ's coming, however far ahead of time, is to announce the good

news itself.40

It is often said that for Paul, Christ isthe gospel.

41

This expressionis too imprecise, a banner under which too many different views can

gather. Central to Paul's language is not so much the person of Christ

36. This requires us to be cautious in our analysis. It is easy to pass from discussion ofwhat the good news is to what it means, or amounts to; thusP. Stuhlmacher (Das paulinischen Evangelium [Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1968), p. 107): 'Das Evangelium ist, so gesehen, mehr als Missions

predigt. .. Inhaltlich gesehen, ist das Evangelium Verkndigung der HerrschaftChristi. Der auferstandene Christus gilt Paulus als Gegenstand, Grund und himmli

scher Reprsentant des Evangeliums.*

Paul might have agreed with all ofthis. But did he say any of itwas this what heannouncedas he 'proclaimed the good news'?

37. *Neither the formula quoted in 1 Corinthians 15, nor any other formulaic

statement of the content of the gospel of Paul is ever repeated in the entire Pauline

corpus.' H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990), p. 6.38. Which often (but not always) means 'Gentiles'.

39. Respectively, 'all the tribes of the earth will be blessed in you* and 'all thenations () ofthe earth will be blessed in him'.


13/23


as the event of Christ, which is also an event of God the father;42

in

fact it is much easier to tell what Paul believed about die event than it

is to tell what he believed about the person. Gal. 3.8 speaks of an

event, for it is events that can be predicted. Moreover, where we have

hints of Paul's preachinghis announcement of the good news

events predominate. We see this in Paul's account of the gospel in

1 Cor. 15.3-8 ('that Jesus Christ died for our sins...that he was

buried and that he was raised... '); in Galatians we find it in the sum

mary appearing in 3.1 ( foolish Galatians...before whose eyes Jesus

Christ was portrayed crucified'). There is similar language in 1 Cor.

1.18 ("the word of the cross'), 1.23 ('we preach Christ crucified') and

2.2 ( determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ, and

him crucified').43

Although such passages as these provide a general outline of the

event which constitutes the good news, they do not afford a precise

definition;44

nor will I. If we grant simply that the gospel is something

which has happened, then it seems that there is in principle no limit

to the number of different ways in which this might be announced

or described or discussed.

45

Thus Paul's failure in the Galatian

42. Paul's summaryaccounts ofthe good news focus on Christ, but it is God thefather who sent the son (Gal. 4.4), who raised him from the dead (1.1), whose willChrist obeyed (1.4), and who also revealed Christ to Paul ashis son (1.15; seeLhrmann, Offenbarungsverstndnis, p. 77).

43. My conclusion is similar to Richard Hays's (The Faith ofJesus Christ[SBLDS, 56; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983]) that the gospel in Galatians is a

'story'. Hays uses this literary term because he wishes to apply insights drawn from

literary theory to the analysis of Paul's argument (pp. 193-248); I prefer 'event', toexpress Paul's conviction (implicit in the term 'good news') that what he proclaims is

something which has actually occurred.

44. We cannot, for example, take Paul's shorthand term 'Christ crucified' as 'thegospel'. This phrase was evidently part of Paul's preaching of the gospel, but it is

neither self-explanatory nor complete (omitting reference to the resurrection and to

God), nor is it clear that these particular words were essential to Paul's procla

mation; the summary statements in Rom. 1.1-6 and Gal. 1.4, for example, both omitthe term 'crucified', while making other claims ('designated Son of God in power',

Rom. 1.4; 'gave himself for our sins', Gal. 1.4) at which the shorthand phrasebarely hints.


14/23

78 Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 53 (1994)

controversy to appeal to any essential formula is easily understood:

there is no such formula.46 Whatever the language of preaching, that

language is not itself the gospel, and handing on this language is not

th same as delivering the gospel.47

Ill

Let us return to Paul's account in Gal. 1.12 of how the gospel came to

him. What does Paul mean when he says that it came "through a reve

lation of Jesus Christ'? It has often been observed that, as a persecutor

of the church, Paul must have heard the gospel before Christ was

revealed to him or he himself was called; therefore what came by

revelation must have been not the content of the gospel, but rather the

conviction of its truth.48

presents there is "the gospel story'. Was this Peter's 'gospel for the circumcised'(Gal. 2.7)?

46. Goppelt ('Tradition', p. 218) argues that ifthere were nofixedformula Paulcould not speak ofaltering the gospel, as he does in Gal. 1.6-9. This does not fol

low; the good news can be told in various ways, but ifone adds, 'This is good newsfor those who obey the law\ then this addition certainly alters the gospel from whatit would be otherwise.

47. So much for Paul's understanding of'gospel'. Can we infer how the term isunderstood by those preachers who, following Paul to Galatia, now evidently preach

that Gentiles must observe Jewish law? In Gal. 1.6-9 Paul treats this issue as a dis

pute over the gospel. Nevertheless there is no indication in Galatians that the basic

understanding of'gospel', namely that it is the good news ofthe event ofChrist, isin dispute; this is not discussed, but rather taken for granted. We may conjecture that

these preachers' account ofthis event includes something like this: *... and thus thegood news is that by Christ all who obey God's law are saved'. This particular version ofthe blessing ofthe Gentiles, blessing them only when they cease to beGentiles, Paul will not allow.

When, thereafter, Paul speaks in Gal. 2.7 of'the gospel ofuncircumcision' andthat 'of circumcision', meaning respectively that which is entrusted to himselfand

that which is entrusted to Peter, this need not mean two gospels different in contenta possiblity ruled out by 1.6-7. Paul does not refer to the good news but rather

to its declaration; he announces it to Gentiles, Peter to Jews. What they announce is

the sameor so Paul maintains; when Peter (in Paul's view) wavers on the issue ofGentile law-observance, Paul charges him in 2.14 precisely with failure to preserve

'the truth of the gospel' Paul's distinctive phrase (found only in Gal 2 5 and 14) for


15/23


This is an important distinction, which indeed goes to the heart of

the issue: what takes place when the gospel is proclaimed? This ques

tion we must shortly turn to; but I do not thinkthe distinction between

knowledge and conviction is important to Paul's argument in Gal.

1.11-12, because I do not think it is related to the point which Paul

here wants to make to the Galatians. The issue before the Galatians is

not how Paul became convinced of the gospel; it is what the gospel

requires of the Galatians: is circumcision necessary, or not? The

gospel as Paul announced it to them did not require circumcision;

what Paul needs to show in this letter is that he announced it correctly.

Paul has little reason to appeal in this context to a revelation of Jesus

Christ, unless that revelation functions as authority on this disputed

point.

However, Paul supplies no particulars of the revelation (was it a

vision? of what? were words spoken? what were they?) on which to

ground his appealexcept for the purpose clause, order thatI

announce [Christ] as the good news to the Gentiles...' 49 As Betz

observes, Paul does not explain how this commission emerged from

the revelation.

50

In the nature of things, everything here has to be

SPCK, 1985), p. 9; F.F. Bruce, The Epistle ofPaul to the Galatians (Exeter:Paternoster Press, 1982), p. 88.

49. Cf. Bornkamm, 'The Revelation', pp. 96-97; W. Meeks, The FirstUrbanChristians (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), pp. 115-16. ContrastLiihrmann's argument (Offenbarungsverstndnis, p. 77) that, because in 1.12 Paulsays 'revelation ofJesus Christ' and in 1.15-16 that God *reveal[ed] his son', therefore God has revealed Christ as the son of God. Ifthis is implicit, Paul does not

develop it (perhaps because it does not advance his argument on the issues inGalatia).

Liihrmann also argues (pp. 73-81) that Paul opposes 'the revelation ofJesusChrist* to the revelation of law to Moses, taking the latter to be central to the doctrine

of the preachers Paul opposes in Galatia. This thesis conflicts with my own that

Paul's casual use of'ancestral tradition' in 1.14 refers to what has been receivedfrom Moses; that would be unlikely if it were being expressly argued that Mosaic law

is 'revealed*.

50. Betz, Galatians, pp. 71-72. G. Howard (Paul: Crisis in Galatia [Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1990], pp. 34-35; emphasis in the original)calls this not merely a commission, but a 'particular form ofthe gospel9: the 'gospel


16/23


taken on Paul's word anyway; he is the only witness to this revelation.

Paul does not elaborate on the significance of this commission to

preach to Gentiles, treating it rather as a sufficient demonstration of

the point at issue. We may wonder why a gospel to the Gentiles couldnot include a requirement that Gentiles submit to Jewish law, but it

seems that this question did not bother Paul. Elsewhere I have argued

that Paul considers Jewish law to be inherently the law of the Jewish

people, as Roman or Greek law is the law of the Romans or Greeks,

and not applicable to others.51

Paul's argument in Galatians 1 provides

some support for this thesis, for Paul proceeds on just such an

assumption here: that he was sent to the Gentiles is evidence that he

was not sent bearing the law of the Jews. And since God, in revealingJesus Christ to Paul, did send Paul to preach that Christ is good news

for the Gentiles, then it follows that the gospel does not require

Gentiles to observe Jewish law, either as to circumcision or as to food

or as to any other point.

Paul knows this because it was revealed to him by God. How do the

Galatians know it? The radical change in Paul's conduct (1.23: "the

one who once persecuted us now proclaims the good news of the faith

he was destroying') is itself evidence that something more than human

was at workupon him. I agree with those who contend that this line of

thought, although never spelled out, is a major strand of the implicit

argument of 1.11-24.52

But Paul makes other arguments as well, and

when in 3.1-5 he appeals most directly to the Galatians it is their own

experience he calls to witness:

O foolish Galatians, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was displayed as

crucified, who has bewitched you? I want to learn just one thing fromyou: did you receive the spirit by your lawful action [ ] or

by your faithful hearing [ ]?.. .The one supplying the

spirit and working powerful things among you, [was]53

this because of

lawful actions or because offaithful hearing?

When the Galatians heard the gospel they did not simply receive

human words; they received the spirit, and power. Again in 4.6 Paul

recalls that 'because you are sons, God sent the spirit of his son into

51. By whatLaw?, p. 198.

52 Betz Galatians p 66; Schlier Galater p 45


17/23


your hearts, crying "Abba, father!'" The presence of the spirit is also

alluded to in 5.5 ('by the spirit, from faith, we await the hope of

justification'), 5.16 ('walk by the spirit*) and 5.25 ('if we live by the

spirit...').54

We need not understand the delivery and reception of the spirit and

of God's power solely in terms of the proclamation of the gospel. But

the connection between proclamation and divine power, made in Gal.

3.1-5, is also familiar from Paul's other letters. 1 Cor. 1.18 testifies to

it: Tor the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are per

ishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God'. Paul's

own experience must underlie this testimony; once he thought the

gospel foolishness, now he perceives it to be the power of God. 'Word

of the cross' is evidently used here to identify what Paul preaches, as

1.23 ('we preach Christ crucified')55

makes clear; it is what Paul typi

cally refers to in Galatians as 'the gospel'. Here the decisive role of

God's power in Paul's preaching is emphasized by the declaration that

without that power the word of the cross is perceived by those who

hear it to be foolish. This distinction between different hearings of the

gospel is also implicit in Rom. 1.16: 'For I am not ashamed of the

gospel; for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has

faith...956

In 1 Thess. 2.13 the human/divine contrast present in

Galatians 1 is applied to the gospel generally, not only to its reception

by Paul: 'And for this reason we also thank God ceaselessly, that

receiving the word of God you heard from us you accepted it not as

the word of humans but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is at

workin you believers'. Here both human and divine aspects of the

gospel57

are declared: the word is spoken by humans, yet it is not a

54. Gal. 4.9 ('knowing God, or rather being known by God*) may be a similarallusion. 'Knowing God' is evidentlyan experience ofthe Galatians; ifthis is equated

with 'being known by God' that too seems to be an experience, and if so, thenprobably that alluded to in 3.3, 5, 4.6. (Whether God's knowledge of humans beunderstood as the basis oftheir knowledge ofGod, or connected in some other way,is a complex problem. See the extensive bibliography in BAGD, s.v. 7.)

55. Cf. 2.2: 'For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, andhim crucified'.56 NRSV REB and NJB translate 'has faith'; NAB 'who believe'


18/23


human word, and the proof lies, as in Gal. 3.1-5, in the divine power

at workwhere the word is received.

What happens when the gospel is proclaimed? That depends. In

Paul's view the gospel always rests on divine authority, not only for

Paul himself, to whom the gospel was 'revealed', but also for those,

like the Galatians, who accept the gospel from Paul; for the gospel

comes to them with the spirit and the power of God. If the spirit and

the power are lacking, the gospel appears to be foolishness and the

hearers do not receive it.

IV

In putting the matter thus, however, we are using terminology that is

not natural to Paul. He does occasionally speak of receiving the

gospel; the texts, which we have examined, are Gal. 1.9 ('if someone

preaches good news contrary to what you have received...'), 1 Cor.

15.1 ('the good news which I declared to you, which you also

received...') and 1 Thess. 2.13 ('receiving the word of God heard

from us').58

But if we think of 'receive the gospel' as marking one's

entry into the community or among the saints, then 'receive thegospel' is not Paul's characteristic terminology for that event.

What Paul prefers to say is that one is calledadjective ,

verb . In Gal. 1.6 he speaks of 'the one who called you in the

grace of Christ'; in 1.15 of 'the one who set me apart in my mother's

womb and called me through his grace'; in 5.8 again of 'the one who

called you'; and in 5.13 he recalls, 'you were called to freedom,

brothers'. In each of these passages the terni appears absolute, in the

sense BAGD describes as 'to call someone to something', with the'something' unspecified. This is a technical sense, found also in Rom.

8.30 (quoting the LXX), 9.12, 24, 1 Cor. 7.15, 17, 18 (2x), 20, 21, 22,

(2x), 24 and 1 Thess. 5.24. The caller is always God,59

the called are

those to whom Paul writes,60

and these passages imply a general

58. In Gal. 2.12, as we saw, Paul denies 'receiving' the gospel from anyhuman.

He also uses , 'to receive', in 1 Cor. 11.23, Phil. 4.9 and 1 Thess.4.1 (and in Col. 2.6 and 4.17, if that letter is Pauline) without reference to thegospel


19/23


understandingone which Paul expects his correspondents to share

that God has called him and them to something which all understand

without any explicit description. Twice, however, Paul makes a more

explicit reference: in 1 Cor. 1.9 he says, 'God is faithful, through

whom you were called into the fellowship of his son JesusChrist our

Lord9, and in 1 Cor. 2.17 he speaks of

(God who calls you into his

kingdom and glory9. These two passages have the same verb ('call'),

subject ('God') and object (plural 'you') as the more common usage

which does not specify what one is called to; this must be the same

call, because if there were more than one Paul could not so freely dis

pense with further identification of the call he refers to.

That the 'call' marks entry into the community runs under all these

passages; in 1 Cor. 7.17-24, where the verb appears eight times, the

central theme is 'Each [ofyou], in the calling61

in which called, in that

remain' (7.20). This is applied to specific cases: one who is circum

cised (7.18), one who is uncircumcised (7.18), one who is a slave

(7.21, 22), one who is free (7.22), all referring to one's pre-Christian

condition in the world, which in general Paul says should remain as it

was.

The connection between the call and the gospel appears in Gal. 1.6:

am astonished that you are so quickly turning from the one who

calledyou to anothergospel... ';6 2

it is also suggested by the proximity

of 1 Thess. 2.12 ('God who calls you into his kingdom') to 2.13

('receiving the word of God'), examined above.63

With its emphasis

on God's action, the vocabulary of calling bears with it the point Paul

has to make expressly (as we have seen) about the preaching and

reception of the gospel: that this depends on God's power. It appears

that the proclamation of the gospel was instrumental in the calling of

Christians; indeed the two are different aspects of a single occurrence.

But most of the time, when Paul refers to the calling he says nothing

about the gospel or its proclamation.64

61. Here refers (as the passage makes clear) to station in lifea play onwords.

62. See also, outside the undisputed Pauline letters, 2 Thess. 2.19: 'he called youthrough our preaching*.

63 See n 57


20/23


21/23


good news I declared to you...in the language [

]... which I delivered to y on... which I also received

[ ...8 ]...'; Paul then recountsChrist's death, burial, resurrection and appearances (1 Cor. 15.3-8).

As I noted at the outset, the contrast between these two passages has

been a stumbling block for many; Paul seems to deny tradition to the

Galatians, yet affirm it to the Corinthians.

This conflict disappears if we read 1 Cor. 15.1-3 in another light.

Although this passage is formally parallel to Gal. 1.11-12, substan

tively it is closer to Gal. 3.1-5. In 1 Corinthians 15 as in Galatians 3

Paul recalls his preaching of the gospel; for the Corinthians he doesthis principally by quoting some of the words he used, for the

Galatians principally by recounting the effecthis preaching produced.

But in neither passage are words and effect separated; after quoting

his preaching in 1 Cor. 15.3-8, Paul alludes to the effect of this

preaching in 1 Cor. 15.11 ('so we preached and so you believed

[ ]'),66

and before speak

ing of this effect in Gal. 3.2-5 he alludes to its content in Gal. 3.1

('Jesus Christ was preached as crucified').In both passages Paul recalls his hearers' call, that event which

ushered them into 'the fellowship of Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. 1.9). But

Paul uses this recollection for different purposes. In Galatians 3 he

reminds his hearers that they were called apart from the law, and from

this he argues that they remain free from the law.67

In 1 Corinthians

15 Paul reminds his audience that part of the good news is Christ's

resurrection, and from this he argues the resurrection of the dead in

general. Inasmuch as the Corinthian argument draws on what the goodnews includes while the Galatian argument draws on what it does not

include, Paul naturally makes a more specific reference to his

preaching in the one case than in the other.

It moreover serves Paul's purpose in 1 Corinthians 15 to invoke

specific language because it is language he shared with the other

apostles, and, as we know from 1 Cor. 1.10-13, Paul writes to some

who heard the gospel from Apollos or Cephas rather than from Paul.

Thus in 15.11 he says, 'Whether it was I or they, so we preach andso you believed'. For this reason Paul finds it useful to note that he


22/23

86 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 53 (1994)

himself, like the others, preached in the language he received. But it

does not follow that he rests his argument on the authority of

tradition; he rests it on what his hearers know, on what they

experienced when, hearing the good news, they were called and they

believed.

ABSTRACT

Focusing on Galatians, the article discusses Paul's understanding of the roles played

by 'tradition' and 'revelation' in spreading the gospel. It is argued that Paul sees

traditionwhether Jewish or Christianas a human mechanism. While the gospel istransmitted by human words, these words are not the gospel; the gospel is an event

which can be described with various words but made known only by divine power;

this is reflected in Paul's usual terminology, which is not that one receives thegospel, but one is called. The apparent contradiction between Paul's affirmation oftradition in 1 Corinthians 15 and his denial ofit in Galatians 1 results from the dif

ferent arguments he makes in the two letters; only in Galatians is he talking abouthow the gospel is spread.

This publicationis available inmicroform.

University MicrofilmsInternational reproduces this

publication in microform:microfiche and 16mm or

35mm film. For informationIabout this publication or anyof the more than 13,000 titles

we offer, complete and mail the coupon to: UniversityMicrofilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor,MI 48106. Call us toll-free for an immediate response:800-521-3044. Or call collect in Michigan. Alaska andHawaii: 313-761-4700.

AddrH_

(Sty

State


23/23

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American

Theological Library Association.

Tradition and Revelation - Galatians

Documents

Transcript of Tradition and Revelation - Galatians