Download - 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
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
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;
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
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
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
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
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
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... ').
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
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
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
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.
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
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 '
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
9/23
WINGERTradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Studyin Galatians 73
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'
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
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
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
11/23
WINGERTradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Studyin Galatians 75
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,
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
12/23
76 Journal for the Studyof the NewTestament53 (1994)
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'.
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
13/23
WINGERTradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Studyin Galatians 77
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.
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
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
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
15/23
WINGERTradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Studyin Galatians 79
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
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
16/23
80 Journal for the Studyof the NewTestament53 (1994)
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
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
17/23
WINGERTradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Studyin Galatians 81
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'
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
18/23
82 Journal for the Studyof the NewTestament53 (1994)
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
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
19/23
WINGERTradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Studyin Galatians 83
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
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
20/23
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
21/23
WINGERTradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Studyin Galatians 85
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
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
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
-
7/31/2019 Tradition and Revelation - Galatians
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.