Friends, I beg you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You have done me no wrong. You know that it was because of a physical infirmity that I first announced the gospel to you; though my condition put you to the test, you did not scorn or despise me, but welcomed me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. What has become of the goodwill you felt? For I testify that, had it been possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Galatians 4: 12-16)

Paul's mission to the Galatians was probably an accident. Paul most often focused on centers of commerce and politics such as Antioch, Ephesus, and Corinth. The specific towns associated with the Church in Galatia were sufficiently obscure that their precise identities remain uncertain.

Paul was probably on his way to another place when he fell ill. Evidently the illness continued for some time. The illness - perhaps the thorn of flesh - was so troublesome as to have challenged the hospitality and care of the Galatians. Yet the outcome of this accident and illness reverberates nearly 2000 years later.

External events may delay our plans. Disease is an especially unwelcome cause of delay. But even disease and delay can be agents of grace. While Paul may not have perceived it while he was writing, we might easily perceive that his troubles with the Galatians have proven to be a source of grace for us.

Above is St. Paul in a detail from a painting by Albrecht Durer

And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God. Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods. Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again? You are observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted. (Galatians 4: 6-11)

The Galatian Church was mostly made up of Greek-speaking people who had once worshiped the Olympian gods.

It is likely that the Church also included many gentiles who had first been involved with a local Jewish synagogue.

Throughout the Jewish diaspora there were many "God-Fearers" who admired, supported, and participated in Jewish worship, but did not convert.

For these individuals the Olympian rituals were as much civic or family traditions as religious worship. The God of Moses was closer to fulfilling their spiritual needs.

We worship - give value and often equal value - to contending claims: our family, our employment, our hobbies, our church, our sports-teams, our nation, and more.

But Paul insists that there is only one whom we should truly value. We are to give ourselves to God through Christ.

My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than slaves, though they are the owners of all the property; but they remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. (Galatians 4: 1-5)

The distinctions of nation, status, gender - or any other identity - no longer have any claim. By giving ourselves to Christ, in Christ, and through Christ we take on our true and perpetual identity as children of God.

The law was established to protect and prepare the children of Abraham for eventual redemption. The way of redemption is now at hand. Rather than the limitations of the law, we are given the opportunity to walk hand-in-hand with Jesus.

Jesus came so that we might have life and live it abundantly. Jesus died so that we might understand the place of self-sacrifice in attaining joy. Jesus transcended death so that we would know the boundless nature of our true identity.

As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3: 27-29)

In these three verses - and often elsewhere - Paul's Greek uses the dative case, a form nearly extinct in English.

The dative is used to indicate when something is given to the noun. The dative often signals the indirect object of the verb.

Through baptism we are given to Christ. All are one by being given to Christ Jesus.

When we read Paul's reference to being "in Christ," the Greek encourages us to understand that we have been given to Christ.

Paul may even be using what Greek grammarians call the dative of possession, suggesting that Christ owns us.

Above is St. Paul by El Greco.

Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. (Galatians 3: 23-26)

The Greek for imprisoned can also mean to protect or to keep under guard. The Greek translated as disciplinarian can also mean tutor.

It was the goal of the law to protect and preserve humanity, to prepare us in our role as children of God. With the arrival of Jesus the role of the tutor is no longer needed.

One translation renders verse 24 as, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith." (Whole Bible)

Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (Galatians 3: 21-22)

The law was appropriate to its time and place. The law is not contrary to God, no more than the earth is contrary to sun.

But the earth alone cannot bring us to abundant life. Under the law we are as seeds imprisoned - securely - in the cold ground of winter. But the warmth and rains of Spring - represented in the self-sacrificing love of Jesus - call us to break through the earth and reach toward the sun.

I agree with Paul that a seed which does not respond to warmth and rain by growing will fail to achieve its potential. But neither does the seed suddenly detach itself from the earth.

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator. Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one. (Galatians 3: 19-20)

The mediator - Moses - brought the law, with the help of angels.

The children of Israel had departed from the true path. They had transgressed - parabasis - or gone the wrong way.

The laws of Moses served to bring the travelers toward the true path and the right direction.

But now in Jesus we have a map and compass to guide us and no longer are in need of the law.

Mediation is no longer needed. We can approach God directly.

Above is The Ecstacy of St. Paul by Johann Liss.

Brothers and sisters, I give an example from daily life: once a person’s will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, ‘And to offsprings’, as of many; but it says, ‘And to your offspring’, that is, to one person, who is Christ. My point is this: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise. (Galatians 3: 15-18)

Engaging ancient scripture for contemporary meaning can be a treacherous business. Moving from one context to another and one language to another requires real care. It is tempting to find in scripture what we want to find.

Paul is referring to Genesis 22: 17-18 where God makes covenant with Abraham:

"In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed."

In my opinion Paul has allowed his enthusiasm for making an argument overturn his concern for accurate translation. In Hebrew, as in English, seed - zera' - can be both singular and plural. The Greek - sperma - can also mean and usually does mean the plural.

I do not doubt Paul's authenticity or his inspiration. But I know myself well enough to recognize in Paul an unfortunate tendency toward over-statement. Making a dramatic point is often helpful. But especially in regard to scripture, humility is often more appropriate.

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.’ Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for ‘The one who is righteous will live by faith.’ But the law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, ‘Whoever does the works of the law will live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatian 3: 10-14)

The law was - is - a way of self-discipline. The law provides a framework and parameters to guide us in making choices.

The law is an external and explicit pattern that we can try to consistently observe. Unfortunately the attempt at consistency too often leads to the pride and hypocricy that Jesus found in many Pharisees.

Paul quotes the prophet Habakuk that the righteous shall live by faith. (Habakuk 2:4). Habakuk's faith is the Hebrew 'emuwnah meaning firmness, fidelity, or steadiness.

The Greek that Paul uses for faith - pistis - means to be persuaded, to be friends with, to trust, or to believe.

The Greek suggests the outcome is an intellectual process. The Hebrew seems much more a state of being. Paul was ready to use intellectual tools to bring listeners to faith. But for Paul faith is a profound and transforming experience, not just a state of mind.

Just as Abraham ‘believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’, so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.’ For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed. (Galatians 3: 7-9)

Belief preceded the law. The gospel of Jesus is the same gospel given to Abraham. The spiritual foundation of the law is this same gospel. Spiritual insight is available to all. Spiritual insight is superior to legalistic discipline.

This is, it seems to me, a reasonable argument. Further, I am predisposed to accept the primacy of spiritual insight and to be suspicious of religious legalism. Whether this is spiritual insight or the legacy of being raised in churches descended from Paul's teaching is less clear.

But the way Paul constructs his argument is off-putting to me. It seems to me legalistic in its insistence on one angle and dismissal of another. In the Gospel according to Matthew Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5: 17-18).

Fulfilling the law may well be different than ritual observance - or circumcision - but I do not hear or see in Jesus a dismissal of the law.

The greatest challenge of this study is a sense that Paul is so preoccupied by what we might call the "Sermon at Golgotha" that he ignores - or is unaware - of the Sermon on the Mount or most of what Jesus taught.

The passion, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus is the crucial climax of redemption. But I sometimes feel Paul has come into the play at the end of the second act. He is transfixed by the climax, but - because he missed what led up to the climax - he has a rather limited take on the meaning of the climax.

It is difficult for me - and I need to exercise considerable discipline - to hear the spiritual insight of Paul that can be obscured by his rhetorical approach.

Above is the Conversion of St. Paul by Caravaggio.

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified! The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you experience so much for nothing?—if it really was for nothing. Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? (Galatians 3: 1-5)

During his time with the Galatians Paul had not encouraged observance of the law. Even though - or precisely because they were gentiles - Paul had only brought a message of the self-sacrifice of Jesus.

Paul recalls that the Galatians had pascho tosoutos - experienced a great deal - as a result of the Spirit. Pascho can mean to suffer or to be fulfilled, depending on context.

For Paul we are called to fully share the experience of Jesus. We are to enter into both the suffering and fulfillment of the crucifixion. In this deeply felt spiritual encounter we will find our ultimate origin and purpose.

For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. (Galatians 2: 19-21)

Paul perceives in Jesus an ultimate act of friendship: voluntary self-sacrifice for the good of another. The crucifixion was not, for Paul, merely another occasion of imperial injustice.

He sees in the crucifixion an essential act of divine redemption. Jesus was sacrificed for the good of Paul... and the good of all.

In the self-sacrifice of the crucifixion is true justification. In this action is revealed the kind of love that is fundamental to our origins, our calling, and our fulfillment.

But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. (Galatians 2: 17-19)

These closing verses of the second chapter are - at least for me - dense, difficult, and far from clear. The English translation reasonably captures the Greek. Both string together words that fail to evoke a certain meaning or image.

Yet I perceive that these words may be crucial to Paul's understanding of the gospel.

Becoming fully persuaded by Jesus and a true friend of Jesus does not mean we avoid mistakes, or always take the right path, or resist distraction and confusion. But our failures do not reflect on our friend. Clear enough.

Paul is concerned about building up what he once tore down, to what is Paul referring? He once tore down early Christian communities. He has committed most of the last decade to tearing down the claims of law and ritual. Which is it?

Such rebuilding would show Paul to be a transgressor. This is parabates or lawbreaker, which adds confusion to his meaning. But parabates is derived from - and has a strong sense of - parabaino which is to abandon trust.

Given the whole context of the letter, I discern that Paul is implying that he cannot return to the attractions of the law without betraying his friend. Paul has spent many years arguing that the law is not sufficient and can, in fact, produce an illusion of faithfulness. To suggest otherwise would be to turn away from Jesus.

Paul knows the comforts and attractions of the law. It was through his deep familiarity with the law that he was able to recognize the insufficiency of it. It was necessary for his dependence on the law to die in order for Paul to experience the abundant, joyful, and true life - zao - of being in relationship with Jesus.

Paul perceives that his personal experience is not just personal, but is a model for the Galatians and many others.

Above is a study of St. Paul preaching in Athens by Raphael.

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. (Galatians 2: 15-16)

Here is the core gospel taught by Paul: The law does not justify. We are justified - the Greek is dikaioo - through faith in Jesus Christ.

This is the Greek verb for rendering justice or for deciding what someone is due. It can involve condemnation of the guilty. But it as often means to declare innocent or "as one ought to be."

The law - of Moses or the Emperor - is incapable of fundamental justification. Only by being persuaded by Jesus or becoming the friend of Jesus can we become as we ought to be.

The Greek we translate as faith is pistis. This is a persuasion that leads to confident belief in another. It is to be in trusting relationship - full friendship - with another.

This kind of relationship is experienced rather than intentionally constructed. A friendship is formed over time, through shared joy and difficulty, and confirmed in mutual loyalty.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’ (Galatins 2: 11-14)

Paul is not criticizing Cephas, probably Peter, for eating and otherwise associating with the Gentiles, but for later pretending as if he had not and would not. This inconsistency was corrupting.

Paul uses the story to make several points with the Galatians: that the estimable Peter did not condemn the liberty of the Gentiles, that the influence of the circumcision faction led to unfortunate hypocricy, and that Paul is not less than Peter in either rank or moral authority.

Consistency of behavior became a hallmark of Paul's teaching. To the Galatians he encourages living "orhopodeo pros aletheia euagagelion" or walking straight with the truth of the good news.

On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do. (Galatians 2: 7-10)

Paul asserts that those in leadership recognized that he had been commissioned by Jesus. These leaders could not add or detract from this commission, but they did affirm the commission.

Paul also suggests the leaders recognized two different ministries: one to the Jews and another to the gentiles. The Galatians were mostly - perhaps entirely - gentiles. Paul seems to suggest that for those claiming descent from Abraham, the law may still be - quaintly? - observed.

But for all others, the new convenant of Jesus Christ has replaced the law of Moses with the liberty of God's grace. As it is Peter's role to bring this message to the Jews, it is Paul's role to bring this message to the gentiles.

Above is James the Just, leader of the church in Jerusalem and brother of Jesus, as portrayed in a modern icon.

But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you. And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me. (Galatians 2: 4-6)

The full meaning of Paul's Greek is not always clear. He can be so implicit - depend so much on the prior knowledge of his readers - that it is not always possible for us to be absolutely sure of his intention.

Following is one possible clarification of both language and meaning:

"Unreliable believers were inserted into these careful deliberations regarding the liberty we have in Christ Jesus with the goal of bringing us into bondage." Jewish converts who emphasized adherence to the Torah and tradition joined the Jerusalem discussions. In Paul's opinion they fundamentally misunderstood the teachings of Jesus. Paul was confident that through the redemptive power of Jesus we had been freed from the law of Moses.

"But we did not submit to them, even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you." The false gospel that has been given to the Galatians was presented at this meeting in Jerusalem. It was not accepted. Paul stood up to the false doctrine then as he is doing again in this letter.

"Indeed from those involved in the deliberation (of what quality they were makes no difference to me, God shows no partiality) - the consultations contributed nothing new." What Paul presented to this Jerusalem conclave was accepted without subtraction or addition. The gospel that Paul had preached to the Galatians was accepted. The revelation of Paul was affirmed for the gentiles. The tradition of Moses was limited to the Jews.

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. (Galatians 2: 1-3)

Male circumcision is a premier sign of covenantal relationship with God specificed in Genesis 17. For the early church circumcision came to symbolize a much broader issue: loyalty to tradition or openness to revelation.

There were those who perceived the gospel as renewing the core orthodoxies of an ancient faith. These believers welcomed all ready to conform to the fundamental instructions of that faith.

Paul understood Christ to have transformed the ancient faith, opening it to a new covenant more needful of revelation than tradition. For fourteen years he preached this gospel to the uncircumcised.

When Paul went to Jerusalem it was his own decision and as the result of revelation. The orthodox authorities did not call him. Paul came to Jerusalem as a peer in teaching and preaching the gospel.

The Greek involving "running in vain" is as convoluted as the English. But a reasonable sense might be, to ensure that his ministry would not end with him. Paul sought to bind together orthodoxy and revelation.

Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; they only heard it said, ‘The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.’ And they glorified God because of me. (Galatians 1: 22-24)

Whatever was said by the mysterious others who brought a different gospel, Paul has perceived an attack. Moreover, this is not just a dispute over the gospel.

Paul perceives the others have attacked his integrity and authority by mischaracterizing his relationship with the churches of Judea and the leaders in Jerusalem.

I am inclined to believe the others accused Paul of departing from accepted teaching established by the Jesusalem leadership.

Paul is responding by minimizing the authority of Jerusalem leaders and - as we will see - also claiming their endorsement.

We are often misunderstood - especially on the most important matters. Others often assume we share the same position as family and friends.

When we take a different position we may be attacked and suspected of bad motives. How do we respond?

How do we keep faith with our deepest understandings and yet not betray existing relationships? Can we remain in relationship even when there is profound disagreement?

Above is an ancient rendering of the Apostles Peter and Paul embracing one another. For many the two Apostles personify two very different understandings of Jesus' teaching.

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! (Galatians 1: 18-20)

Cephas is another rendering of Simon Peter. James and Peter in many ways shared authority over the early Church in Jerusalem.

Paul apparently expects his Galatian readers to disbelieve this account. It seems likely that those who came with another gospel had a different version of Paul's early ministry.

We do not have their side of the story. But whatever they related, Paul is concerned that it will undermine the authority of his teaching.

In James and Peter we have a succession of authority that is based on tradition. In Paul we have a claim of authority arising from revelation.

Both tradition and revelation are honored - if sometimes uneasily - within the Christian experience. Each experience of faith is a bit suspicious of the other.

But each requires the other. Tradition needs revelation to renew the message for new generations. Revelation needs tradition to contextualize a unique personal experience within the timeless purposes of God.

But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. (Galatians 1: 16-17)

The Acts of the Apostles tells a slightly different story, that Paul preached in Damascus before going to Arabia (Acts 13). We can presumably put more trust Paul's own memory.

We know almost nothing of the period in Arabia, probably modern Jordan. Paul is generally thought to have spent at least three years there. Some insist it was as long as seven years.

There are no surviving letters to Arabian churches. Paul did not return to the area. As a result, this is usually perceived as an extended period of study, prayer, and thinking to make sense of his conversion experience.

Paul is clearly keen to persuade the Galatians that his experience and authority does not derive from Jerusalem or the Twelve or any other earthly source, but directly from God.

I have sought such a direct revelation. I have not experienced anything as dramatic as Paul's experience on the way to Damascus. But if it would come, would I have the wisdom to give it three years to mature?

A timeline of Paul's ministry is available from biblestudy.org.

You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. (Galatians 1: 13-14)

According to the Acts of Apostles, Paul was born in Tarsus in modern Turkey, as is Galatia. Most place his birth at around year 10. Acts also reports he studied with Gamaliel (Acts 22:3).

Gamaliel was, perhaps, the leading Jewish scholar of his era. In the Mishnah (a compendium of the Oral Law) it is said, "When he died the honor of the Torah ceased, and purity and piety became extinct." (Sotah xv 18) Gamaliel served on and was for many years head of the Sanhedrin.

Gamaliel was the grandson of Hillel and advanced the more tolerant legal interpretations of the school of Hillel. Many early Christian documents refer positively to Gamaliel.

Paul would have studied with Gamaliel in his late teens and early twenties. But Paul did not follow in the tolerance of his teacher. He strongly opposed the Christian "reformers" of Judaism until his conversion sometime in his mid to late twenties.

We can see in Paul's early life the confidence - and danger - of precocious intelligence and talent. Even with the benefit of tolerant and wise teachers, the young can be drawn to extremes.

Above is the Stoning of St. Stephen by Rembrandt. According to Acts 8:1 Paul (before his conversion) approved of, and may have encouraged, the killing of Stephen.

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Mark 1: 11-12)

The Gospel that Paul teaches is not Paul's. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ revealed to Paul through an apokalupsis of Jesus Christ. Look carefully and you can see in the Greek our English word apocalypse.

This is literally "to lift the veil." This is to see that which has been hidden. This is to bring forward that which has been withdrawn. To lift the veil of a bride on her wedding day is an apokalupsis.

In many Eastern traditions deep understanding comes through life-long discipline. In the West our greatest honors are reserved for sudden epiphanies. The uninvited touch of God is often at the core of our greatest stories.

As it was with Abraham at Haran or Moses at the burning bush so it was with Paul on his journey to Damascus. The divine dramatically and undeniably removed the veil to reveal purpose, meaning, and truth.

Today some Christians can seem preoccupied with the apokalupsis eschaton or the "revelation at the end of the world." But as was the case with Abraham and Moses, for Paul the apocalypse was a new beginning.

Especially on this Easter Sunday we can perceive in the empty tomb an empty womb. What was hidden has been revealed. Like the women in the garden we can suddenly see that there is no final ending but a perpetual rebirthing.

Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. (Galatians 1: 10)

In becoming a servant of Christ Paul has separated himself from family, friends, and colleagues. He had once been esteemed by those held in highest esteem. Since his sudden transformation on the Damascus road all those relationships had been strained or broken.

This sentence does not contribute much to - it even seems to distract from - the argument being developed.

But if instead of argument I read for the feeling of the writer, I may perceive the pain of separation that still troubles Paul. When he chose Christ, he was rejected by many others. Now he feels the Galatians are rejecting him and the true Christ.

To fully embrace our relationship with Jesus is, in one way or another, to change the nature of other relationships.

No one has been more zealous than Paul in claiming a unique relationship with Jesus. He would not give it up for anything. But even the love of Jesus does not undo every regret. Even with Jesus at our side, we may miss others with whom we once walked.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! (Galatians 1: 8-9)

There is but one gospel, insists Paul. It is the message that Paul originally preached. Anything contrary to that message - even from Paul - is wrong.

Anyone - Paul, an angel, or others - who might preach something different is anathema. The original Greek has continued into English fully intact. We use it to mean something detested or cursed.

The original meaning is more complicated. First fruits, a lamb, anything set aside for God is anathema. In this context that which is anathema is irrevocably devoted to God.

Greek was Paul's native language. He was raised in one of the most intellectually sophisticated cities of Greek Anatolia. Paul studied with the most admired Jewish scholars of his generation.

When we read accursed we may be quick to reach an understanding. It is much more difficult to be sure what Paul meant when he wrote anathema.

Above is Adoration of the Lamb from the Ghent altarpiece by Jan van Eyck.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1: 6-7)

Paul is thought to have founded the Galatian churches about ten years before writing this letter, sometime during the decade of the 40s.

We are within the first quarter-century after the resurrection. The New Testament does not exist. The gospels have not been written. No institutional church is in place.

There may have been one or more collections of Jesus' sayings in circulation. At Jerusalem a few intimates of Jesus continue to focus on local religious reform.

There is no common knowledge of what Jesus taught or what the teachings meant. Rather there are many contending concepts.

Paul had founded the Galatian churches around the Grace of Christ - Charis Christos - or the joy of the annointed one.

He is astonished, amazed, wonders about, marvels at - the tone is difficult to precisely discern - that the Galatians are leaving his core concept for another.

Paul insists the other concept is distorted. It will take the Galatians in the wrong direction and create nothing but trouble.

Whether or not Paul is right, his concept will be fundamental to how Christianity emerges as more than a reform movement within Judaism.

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Galatians 1: 3-5)

Each espistle begins with a similar summary of Paul's fundamental message. Grace and peace from the present turmoil is available from God through the example of Jesus whose sacrifice fulfilled the will of God.

Grace is the Greek charis. In typical Greek vocabulary - before centuries of theological overlay - this means joyfulness, gladness, wellness.

Peace - eirene - is harmony, safety, and wholeness. It is derived from a verb meaning to join.

I like the "set us free" in the translation above. But the original - exaireo - seems closer to rescue or draw out or select. Being set free is not wrong, but stronger still is the sense of being removed from danger.

Sins - the Greek is hamartia - is worth more attention. But there will be plenty of opportunity for this later in the epistle.

Evil is not an inaccurate translation of poneros, but the primary meaning was closer to tough, hard, difficult, or troubled. After a long and difficult time at work we might describe the day as poneros.

In my summary of the summary above, I left out "to whom be the glory for ever and ever." In the English I heard an honorific. The Greek suggests something more substantive.

What is translated as glory is doxa. This is a common Greek term for opinion, judgment, or outcome of deliberation. A legal decision was a doxa. A very literal translation of Paul could render this as "in whom exists infinite judgment."

So we might crystallize the core message of Paul as something like the following:

Joy to you and fulfillment from our God and Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ who gave himself for our sins to draw us away from the difficulty of this time and place according to the will of our God and Father who discerns all.

Paul an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— and all the members of God’s family who are with me, To the churches of Galatia: (Galatians 1: 1-2)

There are fourteen epistles of Paul in authorized scripture. In most the salutation is similar to "Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God..." (Corinthians I). In this letter to several churches located in what is now central Turkey, Paul is keen to underline his independent authority.

Paul reminds those to whom he writes that he has been given his role and purpose directly by Jesus Christ and by God. While Paul did not know Jesus prior to the resurrection, he claims that his personal experience of the Christ is fully equivalent to the Twelve.

To be an apostle is to be a "messenger" or "delegate." Paul's message comes directly and only from the Christ. The remainder of the letter will contrast this with other messengers. This is among the earliest of Paul's letters. It is typically dated at about the year 54.

Above is Saint Paul Writing His Epistles by Valentin de Boulogne.