To what “approval of” or “pleasing of” man does Paul refer?

Explanation:

Paul asks if he is trying to persuade or please people. What does this mean? We can see that the question is rhetorical and meant in a disparaging sense. We know from other sources that soothsayers were common in the Greco-Roman world. Such men would use flattery and charm to disingenuously persuade people of their teachings. So why does Paul defend himself against the charge of being a man-pleaser?⁶

We find a plausible answer when we reach Galatians 5:11, and some background will help us see why.⁷ First, in Galatians 1:7 Paul mentions that there are some who try to trouble the Galatian Christians. He mentions false brethren again in Galatians 2:4, who try to circumvent the gospel, and in Galatians 3:1 he alludes to the fact that the Galatians are being deluded. All of this points to the fact that Paul defends himself in this letter from false accusations.

What is Paul falsely accused of? Is this false accusation connected to the fact that he defends himself against being a people-pleaser? Throughout the letter Paul makes clear that neither circumcision nor adherence to Jewish law is a requirement of the gospel (Galatians 2:3; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:5; Galatians 3:10; Galatians 5:2). And Paul has made clear that anyone who undermines this gospel is to be cursed (Galatians 1:8–9). Further, Paul makes clear that his gospel message has not changed from the time he first preached to the Galatians (Galatians 1:9). The Jewish laws are no requirement for salvation, and never will be. 

Finally, we reach Galatians 5:11 where Paul infers that the agitators have been telling the Galatians that in fact Paul does teach the requirement of circumcision.⁸ From this we can deduce that the agitators were likely accusing Paul of being a hypocrite and a people-pleaser.⁹ These agitators want the Gentile Galatians to be circumcised, but Paul never mentioned this when he first preached the gospel to them. To circumvent Paul’s preaching, they tell the Galatian Gentiles that Paul was acting like a soothsayer, or people-pleaser, by failing to require circumcision. According to the agitators, circumcision and Jewish law are required. Paul is just a people-pleaser they say, so don’t believe his version of the gospel.

Counterargument:

When we look at the Greek grammar, we have reason to think that when Paul defends against being a people-pleaser, he has his pre-conversion life in mind. This means that he is not responding to a contemporary accusation, but reminiscing on his life before Christ, at which time he was a people-pleaser. No longer is he a people pleaser, but instead, he is a servant of Christ (Galatians 1:10). We can deduce this by the temporal adverb still that Paul uses to introduce the final part of Galatians 1:10. First, Paul asks if he is trying to persuade people or God. Next, he asks if he is trying to please people. Finally, he introduces the answer to these rhetorical questions with if...still: If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. This construction is temporal and suggests that Paul means to say that while he used to be a people-pleaser, he is one no longer.¹⁰

Response to counterargument:

There is truth in the sense that Paul used to please men and that he does so no longer, but Paul seems to have a specific meaning of what it means to please men in mind. For Paul, pleasing men has to do with undermining the gospel by pleasing those who tie burdens around people’s necks to uphold unnecessary traditions. Paul explains the temptation to please men by upholding unnecessary traditions when he explains that even Peter, that pillar of the faith (Galatians 2:9), became a people-pleaser when the circumcision party arrived (Galatians 2:11). He explains that Peter used to eat freely with the Gentiles, but when the Jewish Christians came, he withdrew from them out of fear (Galatians 2:12). The inference is that Peter acted like a people-pleaser by upholding the unnecessary traditions of Jews not to mingle with Gentiles. Paul, on the other hand, is not acting like a people-pleaser by upholding unnecessary Jewish traditions. Instead, he objects to requiring the Galatian Gentiles to hold to more than the gospel, which is salvation through faith in Christ.

Of course, Paul used to think along similar lines as the circumcision party. He used to think that Jewish law was a requirement of God’s covenant. So when the Jewish Christians in Galatia accuse Paul of lightening the gospel, he can say that he is no longer a people-pleaser by requiring the traditions he once required. The fact is, the agitators accuse Paul of being a people-pleaser, but in the end, by upholding unnecessary traditions, they are the real people-pleasers.

Explanation:

We want to understand why Paul defends against the charge of being a people-pleaser. We know there was tension between Paul and some missionaries who came in to spy on Paul, because Paul did not require the Gentiles to be circumcised (Galatians 2:3–4). In other words, the Jewish Christian missionaries think Paul should require circumcision of Galatian Gentile Christians, but he does not. We also know that the intellectuals of Greco-Roman culture during the first century frowned upon circumcision, and saw it as mutilation.¹¹ For example, Philo, a first-century Alexandrian Jew, writes, The ordinance of circumcision…is ridiculed.¹² Thus, the Jewish-Christian missionaries likely thought that Paul was lessening the gospel by not requiring circumcision, and his lack of courage made him a people-pleaser.¹³

Counterargument:

It might be true that the Gentile intellectuals thought of Jewish circumcision as mutilation, but there is no evidence from the immediate context that Paul has circumcision in mind. We must interpret passages based on their immediate context, and since there is no indication from the immediate context that Paul defends against a specific accusation, we should assume he is being rhetorical.¹⁴

Response to counterargument:

It is true that the immediate context is important to understand the meaning of a passage. Still, we are not held to the principle that all inferences of meaning must be informed by the immediate context. Rather, we are held to the principle that all interpretations must be consistent with the immediate context. The interpretation that Paul is defending himself against an underlying accusation of being a people-pleaser is consistent with the context, even if it’s not informed by it. The fact is, we want to understand the meaning of a passage in light of the immediate and broader literary context. A letter like Galatians is occasional, which means that Paul addresses contemporary issues through this letter. When we read the letter carefully, we deduce that the issue Paul addresses is a disruption from Jewish Christians who try to persuade the Gentiles to follow Jewish laws. These Jewish Christians try to undermine Paul’s authority, and likely accuse him of being a people-pleaser, so Paul defends his apostolic authority (Galatians 1:1; Galatians 1:12; Galatians 2:7), and the content of his preaching (Galatians 1:8–9), by writing to the Galatian churches.

The problem with this view is that Paul is never explicit that he defends against a concrete accusation of being a people-pleaser. We can make inferences from the letter, and some of these inferences are convincing, but there is also a vagueness throughout the letter in terms of the situation in Galatia. Paul defends his apostleship, explains his love for Christ, and presents doctrines of the faith, but it is not always clear when or what accusations he defends against.

Explanation:

Paul is emphatic that he is a follower of Christ and wants the churches of Galatia to emulate this no matter what anyone thinks.¹⁵ First, in Galatians 1:1 he explains that he is an apostle not through man but through Jesus Christ. Next, he explains that no one should preach a gospel contrary to the gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:8–9). Finally, he explains that he is a servant of Christ by saying that if he still wanted to please people, he would not be a servant of Christ (Galatians 1:10). In order to add force to his statement that he is a servant of Christ, Paul first asks two rhetorical questions in the verse. He asks if he is trying to persuade men or God, with the obvious answer being God. Then he asks if he is trying to please men. Paul is setting up his audience to add force to the last words of Galatians 1:10, where he says that if he were still trying to please men, he would not be a servant of Christ.¹⁶ Paul’s point is that he is wholeheartedly devoted to serving Christ and wants the Galatians to emulate this. Following Christ can be difficult at times, especially given the cultural pressures the Galatians must have felt in the Greco-Roman world. Thus, Paul encourages full devotion to Christ.

Counterargument:

While it is true that the first two parts of Galatians 1:10 add force to Paul’s statement at the end of the verse, there are grammatical clues that suggest Paul defends against a specific accusation. First, Paul opens Galatians 1:10 with the conjunction for, which is often used to indicate a causal connection.¹⁷ In this case, it seems that Paul has introduced Galatians 1:8–9 in anticipation of Galatians 1:10. In other words, he wants to refute the notion that he is a people-pleaser, and he uses Galatians 1:8–9 to show that he adamantly rejects the claim.¹⁸ Second, Paul uses now to emphasize temporality. Paul says, For, am I now…? as though he is responding to a specific past occasion.¹⁹ Third, the questions Paul puts out are rhetorical and meant to be answered in the negative. Am I trying to persuade people? No! Am I trying to please people? No! The repetition suggests that Paul not only wants to emphasize that he is not a people-pleaser, but that he is responding to a specific accusation.²⁰

Explanation:

When Paul first preached the gospel to the Galatians, he did not require circumcision. This is because the Jewish laws were fulfilled in Christ, so that salvation is through faith in Christ (Galatians 2:16). Now some agitators have entered the Galatian community who try to convince the Galatians to alter their allegiance from the law-free gospel that Paul preached to upholding Jewish laws.²¹ Paul responds by explaining to the Gentiles that there is only one gospel. He then curses anyone, including himself and angels, if they try to alter the law-free gospel that Paul originally preached (Galatians 1:8–9). Finally, Paul concludes these remarks with the rhetorical questions in Galatians 1:10 where Paul asks if he is a people-pleaser. His point is to reinforce what he already said. No one should alter the gospel, because the gospel is from God; thus, we ought to please God and not people.²²

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it leaves aside the general undercurrent of Paul’s letter. Throughout the letter Paul is fighting to defend his apostolic authority. He begins in Galatians 1:1 by pointing out that he is an apostle through Jesus Christ, and not man. In Galatians 1:11 he explains that he does not preach man’s gospel. In Galatians 1:12–17 he explains that he became an apostle because Jesus Christ revealed the gospel to him, not because he conferred with other Christians. In all of this, Paul is defending his authority so that the Galatians will believe that the gospel he first preached to them, which did not require circumcision, is the gospel of Christ and not men. It’s important for us to interpret the letter of Galatians with this undercurrent in mind. Paul is clearly defending his apostolic authority and the content of his preaching. Thus, we ought to interpret Galatians 1:10 in light of not only Galatians 1:8–9 but the entire letter. With this in mind, we see that Galatians 1:10 takes on a new force. Paul either infers or states three times in three sentences that he is not a people-pleaser. While we cannot know for sure, given the polemic tone of the letter, it seems that Paul is responding to a direct accusation.

This view is consistent with the immediate context and marks a modest approach to the passage. Still, our goal is to understand Paul’s meaning, and it is hasty to suggest that Paul is not responding to a specific accusation. The letter of Galatians is filled with historical and polemical notes that can inform our interpretation, and this view dismisses these clues too quickly.