The Importance of the Gospel: Galatians 1:1-10

Introduction

As stated in the first verse, the book of Galatians was written by the apostle Paul. According to James Montgomery Boice, “Of the traditional Pauline books few have been so unquestioningly accepted as genuine as the book of Galatians.”[1] Though Pauline authorship is virtually uncontested, there is no definite answer as to where the book was written, and neither do scholars know exactly to whom the book was written.[2] During the time of Paul, there was both a Southern and a Northern Galatia, and thus ambiguity exists as to the exact audience to whom Paul wrote.[3] Those who hold to the view that Paul wrote to the southern province of Galatia date the book at around A. D. 48,[4] and those who accept the northern view date the book as late as A.D. 58.[5]

Galatians contains one central theme—the grace of God in Jesus Christ. The book of Galatians easily breaks down into three sections. In the first two chapters of the book, Paul defends his apostleship as being from God. He states explicitly that it was God, not men, who commissioned him to be an apostle (Gal. 1:1, 1:15). In chapters 3-4, Paul reminds the Galatians of the gospel of Christ. He reproves them for being so quickly led astray and urges them to return to the truth of the one, true gospel. Paul specifically appeals to the Galatians on the basis of grace and faith, emphasizing that it is not man’s works that provide salvation, but rather placing faith in the work of Christ (Gal. 3:10, 4:4-6). In the third section of the book, Paul provides the Galatians with instructions for walking in godliness. The key words in this book include grace, faith, and law.

MIT: Believers must hold to a right understanding of the gospel and must proclaim the truth of the gospel in a proper fashion.

Outline

I. Paul introduces himself as an apostle of Christ. 1:1-2

II. Paul greets the church of Galatia. 1:3-5

III. It is important to follow the one, true gospel. 1:6-7

IV. It is important to preach the gospel of Christ correctly. 1:8-9

V. The servant of Christ must aim to please Christ, not men. 1:10

I. Paul introduces himself as an apostle.

It is important to note Paul’s manner of greeting in the beginning of this book. Paul introduces himself specifically as “an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father” (Gal. 1:1). Though Paul introduces himself as an apostle in every other Pauline epistle, the book of Galatians is the only epistle that deliberately states that he is an apostle chosen not through man but through Christ. John Peter Lange observes, “This laying claim so expressly to apostolic dignity in the very introduction, stands…in connection with the vital questions of the Epistle, since his equal apostolic rank had been impugned by the Galatian false teachers.”[6] The false teachers who had invaded the church specifically denied Paul’s claim to apostolic authority, and thus Paul strongly states from the very outset of the book that his authority is based upon Christ.[7] If Paul had appointed himself as an apostle, or if he was appointed merely upon the authority of man, then his message would not be from God.[8] However, Christ himself appointed Paul as an apostle, and Paul’s message is indeed the truth of the gospel.

Paul also backs up his apostolic authority by appealing to the brothers who are with him in Galatia (Gal. 1:2). Campbell observes, “Mentioning these co-laborers emphasized the fact that the teachings of this epistle were not peculiar to Paul but were held in common with others.”[9] Lange further comments, “[Paul] wishes the Galatians to understand, that he has on his side all the brethren in the midst of whom he writes, that these have the same opinion of their conduct, and thus indicates that the Galatians, unless they came to another mind, would sever themselves from the great communion of the brethren, who stand and abide upon the foundation of faith which Paul had laid.”[10] Paul thus introduces this book with a strong assertion of his authority as an apostle, both on the basis of being chosen by Christ and also based on the fact that his message is accepted by his fellow believers.

II. Paul greets the church of Galatia.

After he introduces himself with a strong emphasis on his apostolic authority, Paul then goes on to greet the Galatian church. Just as the introduction of this book differs from Paul’s other epistles, Paul’s greeting to the Galatian church is also unique to this book. Whereas Paul includes exhortation and thanksgiving for the churches he addresses in his other epistles, this element is eliminated from Paul’s greeting to the Galatian church.[11]

Paul begins his greeting with the phrase “grace and peace” (Gal. 1:3). The Greek word used for grace is the word charis. This word means “good will, loving-kindness, favour.”[12] The word also speaks “of the merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues.”[13] This greeting of grace and peace is used by Paul in each of the Pauline epistles. Though Paul uses this word in all of his other epistles, his use of the word “is doubly striking here, inasmuch as it occurs in a letter to churches where the sufficiency of salvation by grace was being questioned and perhaps even denied.”[14] Paul is often referred to as the “theologian of grace.”[15] Thus, it is doubly fitting that he should begin his letter by wishing the church charis. Without grace, one cannot experience reconciliation to God.

Paul also wishes the church peace, or eirene. Thayer defines this word as “the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot, or whatsoever that lot is.”[16] Though Paul uses this word in all of his greetings, it is again especially applicable to the Galatian church. The church of Galatia was overrun by false teachers, and these teachers had threatened the tranquility and the foundation of the Galatian church. Calvin observes, “Paul wishes for the Galatians a state of friendship with God, and, along with it, all good things.”[17]

After greeting the Galatians with grace and peace, Paul continues his greeting with a rich theological message. In verse 3, Paul associates God and the Lord Jesus Christ together. Campbell argues that Paul thus makes “a good statement of the full divinity of Jesus” in this greeting.[18] After he establishes the divinity of Christ, Paul then goes on to discuss the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death. He specifically states that Christ “gave himself for our sins to deliver us” (Gal. 1:4). Calvin observes, “These words…were intended to convey to the Galatians a doctrine of vast importance; that no other satisfactions can lawfully be brought into comparison with that sacrifice of himself which Christ offered to the Father.”[19] Christ alone is able to deliver man from sin. In and of himself, man is powerless. Luther observes, “Paul, even at the first entrance, bursteth out into the whole manner whereof he intreateth this epistle. Christ’s victory…is the overcoming of the law, of sin, our flesh, the world, the devil, death, hell, and all evils: And his victory he hath given unto us.”[20]

Paul ends his greeting doxologically and states that all glory belongs to God the Father (Gal. 1:5). According to Boice, “The doxology that occurs here serves an important purpose. It sets the gospel, centering on the preeminence of the Lord Jesus Christ and his work, above any human criticism or praise.”[21] Paul’s introduction and greeting indeed provides a solid introduction for the thesis of this book. In just a few verses, “Paul had already drawn the lines of battle by touching on two vital concerns. He had affirmed his own apostleship and had declared that the basis of man’s salvation lies solely in the work of Christ and not in any human works.”[22] Paul is now ready to launch straight into the message of his epistle.

III. It is important to follow the one, true gospel.

Immediately following his introduction, Paul rather abruptly begins to address the issues present within the Galatian church. After introducing the gospel so clearly in his greeting, Paul chastises the Galatian church for so quickly turning aside from the gospel that he had preached to them (Gal. 1:6). Hovey observes, “The abruptness with which Paul introduces the occasion for his epistle reveals his intense and painful anxiety—an anxiety mingled with surprise and pressing for expression.”[23] The apostle Paul accuses the Galatian church of turning aside from Christ himself.[24] Warren Wiersbe observes, “The Galatian believers were not simply ‘changing religions’ or ‘changing churches’ but were actually abandoning the very grace of God! To make matters worse, they were deserting the very God of grace!”[25] This is a grave accusation indeed. It is imperative for believers to recognize the importance of following the one, true gospel. The gospel is the power of God to those who believe (Rom. 1:16), and it is only through the gospel that man can be saved. Therefore, to be accused of falling away from the gospel is indeed grave.

Paul goes on to chastise the church for turning aside “to a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6). He quickly goes on to qualify that statement by asserting that there is no gospel other than the gospel of Christ. Paul “declares that it is not a gospel, but a mere disturbance.”[26] Paul had clearly stated the gospel in his introduction to this letter, and he now reiterates to the Galatian church the vital importance and necessity of believing in the one, true gospel. As Boice observes, “The gospel is one. Therefore any system of salvation that varies from it is counterfeit.”[27] Paul is burdened for the souls of the Galatian believers and wishes to convey to them the urgency of believing in the true gospel.

Verse 7 refers to the false teachers for the first time. Paul observes that there “are some who trouble” the church “and want to distort the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:7). This is indeed a grave accusation to bring against those who have infiltrated the Galatian church. To pervert or distort the gospel of Christ is to lead individuals away from the truth of God. In this letter to the Galatians, it is important that they “learn that any attempt to alter the true gospel is culpable and that any who go about teaching another gospel will be condemned.”[28] It is no light matter to tamper with the truth of Christ.

IV. It is important to preach the gospel of Christ correctly.

Following his introduction of the false teachers, Paul has strong words to say about the fate of those who preach a gospel that is untrue. Once more, Paul reiterates the necessity of preaching the one, true gospel. This point cannot be emphasized enough. Paul states in a very strong fashion that those who preach a gospel contrary to the true gospel of Christ should be accursed. Boice observes that Paul’s use of the Greek word anathema literally means, “Let him be damned.”[29] This is indeed an emphatic way to state his point. Preaching the gospel of Christ should not be taken lightly.

Paul feels so strongly about this point that he reiterates it again in verse 9. Anyone who preaches a false gospel is to be accursed. Calvin observes, [Paul] exhorts them to entertain a firm and serious conviction, that the doctrine which they had received and embraced is the true gospel of Christ.”[30] The Galatians had already received the true gospel of Christ, and they should now stand firm in the gospel which they had heard and believed. Paul’s strong words provide a sober warning to those who twist and pervert the gospel in order to lead individuals astray.

Paul is rightly concerned that the Galatians espouse a proper view of the gospel. Boice observes, “If the gospel Paul preaches is the truth, then both the glory of Jesus Christ and the salvation of man are at stake. If man can be saved by works, Christ has died in vain; the cross is emptied of meaning. If men are taught a false gospel, they are being led away from the one thing that can save them and are being turned to destruction.”[31] Much is at stake as a result of the false teaching that pervades the Galatian church. It is imperative that the gospel be preached correctly. Believers must bear in mind that “when the way of the gospel message is corrupted, the way of salvation is confused and people are in danger of being eternally lost.”[32]

V. The servant of Christ must aim to please Christ, not men.

In verse 10, Paul addresses the accusation that he was merely attempting to please men through preaching the gospel. In response to this charge, “Paul denied that he was trying to ingratiate himself with men. It was not men he was serving; it was God. It made no difference to him what men said or thought about him; his master was God.”[33] If Paul was indeed trying to attain the approval of man, he would not have approached the Galatians with such a harsh message. Rather, Paul was concerned with being a faithful and true servant of Jesus Christ. He desired God’s approval over and above any approval he could ever gain from man.

Paul is preaching to the Galatian church in good conscience and out of a desire to please God and to instruct the Galatians in the correct nature of the gospel. The apostle states that his motivation is not earthly approval but rather for the honor and glory of God alone. Paul uses interrogative language in order to more forcefully make his point.[34] In this series of questions, Paul “expresses the great boldness which [he] derived from the testimony of a good conscience; for he knew that he had discharged his duty in such a manner as not to be liable to any reproach.”[35]

It is important that believers seek the approval of God over and above the approval of man. Ultimately, the opinions of man will fade away, but mankind is eternally answerable to God. The very nature of the gospel is offensive in that it requires mankind to take a hard, honest look at sin and the need for a savior. If a believer desires the approval of man over and above the approval of God, he will most likely not faithfully preach the gospel. Seeking to please God will bring forth eternal rewards, but the approval of mankind is fleeting and insignificant. Those who find themselves leaning toward more legalistic tendencies will find the gospel of grace difficult to accept and understand. But it is imperative and necessary for believers to preach the whole, unadulterated gospel.

Within the first ten verses of Galatians, Paul sets up the thesis of this book and provides his readers with the basic direction that he will take his message throughout the entirety of the epistle. He defends his apostolic authority and boldly asserts that his authority is derived from Christ alone and that he speaks in order to bring glory to God alone. Paul also includes a strong statement of the gospel and stresses the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. He then expresses his consternation that the Galatian church would so quickly fall away from the one, true gospel of Christ. Paul reminds the Galatians of the true gospel and urges them to follow the truth of the gospel and to forsake wrong doctrine of false teachers.

It is important for believers to have a firm foundation in the gospel. If a believer has a solid understanding of the gospel of Christ, he is less likely to be led astray by false teachers. The importance of the gospel cannot be stressed enough. It is only through the atoning work of Jesus Christ that man can truly be saved. Any attempt at salvation apart from Christ will ultimately prove futile.

Works Cited

Barclay, Williams. The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977.

Boice, James Montgomery. “Galatians.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 10. Ed. Frank E. Gabelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. 409-508.

Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2005.

Campbell, Donald K. “Galatians.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Dallas: Victor Books, 1983. 587-612.

Hovey, Alvah. “Galatians.” In An American Commentary on the New Testament, vol. V. Ed. Alvah Hovey. Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1887.

Lange, John Peter. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Galatians. Trans. Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1860.

Luther, Martin. A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Philadelphia: Smith, English & Co., 1860.

Thayer, Joseph Henry. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1978.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Dictonary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Wiersbe, Warren. The Bible Exposition Commentary: New Testament Volume 1. Colorado Springs: Victor, 2001.

---

[1] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 10. Ed. Frank E. Gabelein. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 420.

[2] Ibid., 412.

[3] Donald K. Cambell, “Galatians” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Dallas: Victor Books, 1983), 588.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Alvah Hovey, “Galatians,” in An American Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. V, ed. Alvah Hovey (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Society, 1887), 10.

[6]John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Galatians, trans. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, ?), 12.

[7] Boice, 424.

[8] Ibid., 411.

[9] Campbell, 590.

[10] Lange, 12.

[11] Campbell, 589.

[12] Thayer

[13] Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1978).

[14] Campbell, 426.

[15] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Dictonary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 571.

[16] Thayer.

[17] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul: Galatians and Ephesians (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2005), 26..

[18] Campbell, 426.

[19] Calvin, 26.

[20] Martin Luther, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Philadelphia: Smith, English & Co., 1860), 145.

[21] Boice, 426.

[22] Campbell, 590.

[23] Hovey, 15.

[24] Calvin, 29

[25] Warren Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary: New Testament volume 1 (Colorado Springs: Victor, 2001), 683.

[26] Calvin, 31.

[27] Boice, 428.

[28] Boice, 429.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Calvin, 34.

[31] Boice, 429.

[32] Campbell, 591.

[33] William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 11.

[34] Calvin, 36.

[35] Ibid.

The Narrator’s Changed Perspective in “Bartleby, the Scrivener”

Herman Melville’s short story “Bartleby, the Scrivener” is both a fascinating and rather ambiguous tale. Since the revival of Melville scholarship in the 1920s, “Bartleby” has received much attention from various scholars (Lea Bertani 49). Interpretations of this story range from assertions that it is autobiographical to the unlikely interpretation that “Bartleby” is a commentary on Thoreau’s experiment at Walden (Egbert S. Oliver). Other scholars argue that this story should be read as commentary on the ill effects of the American Industrial Revolution (Bertani 54). Other scholars focus on the role of the narrator within the story and argue that the story cannot be understood apart from this character (Todd F. Davis 184). Though perhaps some of these other criticisms can indeed hold some weight, it seems most likely that the events of this story should be interpreted based on the character of the narrator and specifically through the gradual changes that occur within the narrator throughout this story leading up to his exclamation at the end. During the actual events of the story, the narrator experiences an epiphany but does not act based upon his new realization. As he looks back on the story, he experiences a full epiphany based on the events of the past. This paper will view the changes that occur in the narrator throughout the story and argue that he does not fully reach a point of change until he reflectively looks back on the events that occurred in his office.

At the beginning of the story, the narrator introduces himself as “a man who, from his youth upwards, has been filled with a profound conviction that the easiest way of life is the best” (Melville 4). By his own admission, the lawyer is apathetic, tranquil, and a creature of habit. He chose his line of work simply because it was the least turbulent and did not require a great deal of effort on his part. Those of his acquaintance consider him to be “an eminently safe man” (Melville 4). He is not a man of strong emotion and seldom gives himself over to strong feelings. He does not overly concern himself with the affairs of his fellow men and “seldom indulge[s] in dangerous indignations at wrongs and outrages” (Melville 4-5). In his essay “The Narrator’s Dilemma in ‘Bartleby, the Scrivener’: The Excellently Illustrated Re-Statement of a Problem,” Todd F. Davis says of the narrator, “He has not struggled with the ethics of justice, of good and evil; rather, he makes his way in this world comfortable by dealing with the physical, the tangible, that which he can know” (185-6). He considers himself, above all, to be a man of reason and docility and takes great pride in his rationality.

The narrator’s apathetic attitude is also seen in the way he views his employees. Though Turkey and Nippers both exhibit a great deal of incompetency in their work, the lawyer is not willing to dismiss them simply because it is too much trouble to confront his employees over their flaws. Rather, the narrator chooses to focus on the ways his employees are valuable. Davis observes, “He is a man concerned with getting the work of his office completed in a painlessly expeditious fashion. He worries more about the usefulness and productivity of his scriveners than their individual characters” (188). His focus is temporal, and he values his employees simply based upon the degree of service which they are able to offer him.

When the narrator first encounters Bartleby, he is thrilled to have “a man of so singularly sedate an aspect” in his employment to counteract the volatile nature of his other employees (Melville 9). He values Bartleby for his steady, consistent, and quiet work. Winifred Morgan observes that the narrator at first appreciates Bartleby because he “works like the automaton the narrator thinks he requires” (“‘Bartleby’ and the Failure of Conventional Virtue” 262). The narrator cannot even imagine a better or more productive worker. Bartleby seems to be the perfect representation of a hard working scrivener.

Though Bartleby at first brings delight to the temporal-minded narrator, a change soon occurs that begins to cause a shift in the narrator’s thinking. A mere three days after Bartleby enters into the narrator’s employment, he informs the lawyer that he would “prefer not to” do or accomplish certain tasks (10). The narrator is absolutely baffled by Bartleby’s statement and is unsure how to respond. At first he simply sits “in perfect silence, rallying [his] stunned faculties” (11). At first he finds it unbelievable that Bartleby would have responded in such a fashion. But Bartleby continues to placidly respond to the narrator’s requests with the phrase, “I would prefer not to.” Following his typical pattern of apathy and inaction, the narrator chooses not to deal with Bartleby in that moment. Though he ponders what he should do in response to Bartleby’s statement that he would “prefer not to,” the lawyer decides to “forget the matter for the present” and to “reserve it for [his] future leisure” (11). His immediate response to the situation is to pass the work on to his other scriveners and leave the issue of Bartleby for another day and time.

As Bartleby continues in his preference not to accomplish certain tasks, the narrator remains absolutely perplexed at Bartleby’s response. The narrator at first “attempts to respond cautiously, or to use his word, ‘safely’ to something that is out of control” (Morgan 261). However, the lawyer quickly comes to realize that his encounter with Bartleby is far beyond the realm of anything in his previous experience. According to Davis, “The entrance of Bartleby and his refusal to do the tasks set before him force the narrator to question his past rules for living, rules that have never accounted for the mysterious and frightening world…unknowable in earthly terms” (188). Though the narrator is increasingly annoyed with Bartleby’s refusal to accomplish required tasks, there is something about Bartleby that both “strangely disarm[s]” and “in a powerful manner touche[s] and disconcert[s]” the author (Melville 12). The narrator at first attempts to respond to Bartleby as he would to Nippers or Turkey in that he sees Bartleby as “useful to [him] and thus decides to “get along with him” (Melville 13). Morgan observes, “The narrator hopes to bargain, to achieve the sort of semi-comfortable arrangement with Bartleby he has already achieved with Nippers and Turkey, his other copyists” (263). But as Bartleby continues in his persistent resistance, the narrator’s views and ideals undergo a gradual change. It is Bartleby’s unprecedented response that causes the narrator to embark on a journey of self-reflection that gradually alters his perception of himself and of the world.

As Bartleby continues in his refusal to accomplish certain tasks, the narrator begins to observe this strange character more closely and also to evaluate his responses to Bartleby. By keeping Bartleby in his employ, the narrator desires to “purchase a delicious self-approval” (Melville 13). His motivation in “befriending” Bartleby is to “lay up in [his] soul what will eventually prove a sweet morsel for [his] conscience” (Melville 14). At this point, the author’s perspective is still purely temporal. He allows Bartleby to remain in his employment because Bartleby provides him a valuable service, and also because the narrator himself hopes to gain a feeling of morality by allowing Bartleby to stay in his office. At times the narrator is reduced to feeling of utter annoyance and anger upon hearing Bartleby’s oft repeated “I would prefer not to” (14). In other instances, the narrator attempts to reason with Bartleby and inspire him to action. Because Bartleby remains serene and unmoved in the face of any reasoning, the lawyer eventually comes to accept that Bartleby will both continue to copy and refuse to participate in any other activity.
The narrator’s perspective of Bartleby undergoes a complete change on a fateful Sunday afternoon when he decides to make a quick stop at his office on the way to church. Much to his surprise, the narrator discovers that Bartleby is present at his office. On further investigation, the lawyer determines that Bartleby is in fact living in his office (Melville 16). As the narrator observes the utter loneliness and isolation that comprises Bartleby’s existence, he reaches a point of epiphany as, for the first time, his perspective changes from being merely temporal to transcendent. Morgan observes, “Acknowledging Bartleby’s physical poverty and his seeming poverty of spirit jolts the narrator” (264). The narrator states, “For the first time in my life a feeling of overpowering stinging melancholy seized me” (Melville 17). He feels a common bond of humanity with Bartleby and realizes that they are both “sons of Adam” (Melville 17). The narrator’s perspective thus begins to shift as he observes the unthinkable poverty and isolation of his lowly scrivener.

As the narrator continues to ponder on this striking new realization, he begins to feel an overwhelming sense of pity for Bartleby. However, as the narrator continues to ponder Bartleby’s isolation and poverty, “melancholy merge[s] into fear, pity into repulsion” (Melville 19). The lawyer realizes that this encounter with human suffering is beyond the realm of his typical experience, and he is unsure how to respond to this new dilemma placed before him. He realizes the “hopelessness of remedying excessive and organic ill” (Melville 19). Andre Furlani observes that the attorney’s “pity for Bartleby shifts to pity for himself, and the maneuver brings him closer to the truth” (“Bartleby the Socratic 346). The narrator’s encounter with Bartleby causes him to realize something about himself. For the first time in the story, the narrator’s focus shifts from a strictly temporal perspective to a transcendent perspective. He realizes that Bartleby’s disorder is an affliction of the soul, and he further realizes that he cannot reach a soul (Melville 19).

The discovery of Bartleby’s hopeless isolation so rattles the narrator that he abandons his former plans for the day, heads homeward, and ponders how he should respond to what he has encountered. Frulani points out, “The attorney’s reflex is to take pity on Bartleby rather than to acknowledge his power and to act upon it” (345). In other words, though the narrator indeed feels pity for Bartleby, he does not respond to that feeling of pity by taking action. He does not attempt to help Bartleby. He does not make any effort to encounter Bartleby at the point of his soul. His temporal mind cannot quite wrap itself around the startling discovery he has made. During his homeward meditations, the narrator simply resolves to question Bartleby and, if he does not receive satisfactory answers, to dismiss him (Melville 19). The attorney decides that if he must dismiss Bartleby, he will give the scrivener twenty dollars, help him with any travel arrangements he may need, and assure the scrivener that he will come to his aid if Bartleby was ever in need of anything (19). Apparently, the narrator views this plan as a sufficient response to the suffering of a human soul. Thus, though the narrator does indeed experience a shift in his thinking, and though his mind is illuminated to a realm of existence he was not previously aware of, he does not act upon this new realization. Rather, he is frightened by it and does not want to deal with the new reality he has experienced. Though the reader may expect the narrator to respond to his moment of epiphany by changing his actions and way of life, the narrator instead virtually ignores the new perspective he gains on humanity. In a sense, it seems that he “prefers not to” take action or to change the way in which he relates to the world.

On the following day, the narrator begins to question Bartleby. The scrivener follows each question with his usual form of address and “would prefer not to” answer any of the lawyer’s questions (Melville 19). Though the narrator is typically an even tempered and even apathetic man, he is annoyed by Bartleby’s refusal to answer his questions. The lawyer feels that he has done a great deal of good for Bartleby, and that he is thus entitled to receive some answers concerning the scrivener’s personal life (20). Despite his irritation, however, he cannot quite bring himself to dismiss Bartleby. The narrator feels that he cannot carry out the task of dismissing Bartleby and that if he would be “denounce[d] [as] a villain if [he] dared to breathe one bitter word against this forlornest of mankind” (Melville 20). He thus changes his tactic and one again tries to appeal to Bartleby on the basis of temporal reason. However, Bartleby “would prefer not to be a little reasonable,” and once again the author is forced to acknowledge that he is dealing with something outside his usual realm of experience (Melville 20). As Furlani observes, “The attorney is rapidly placed…before the prospect of a world that is not fully encompassed by reason” (348). The attorney’s previous view of the world does not provide him with a sufficient framework to deal with Bartleby.

Throughout the remainder of the story, the narrator vacillates between feelings of pity, revulsion, and anger towards Bartleby. When Bartleby ceases to copy, the narrator assumes that there is something wrong with Bartleby’s eyes and is touched by his temporarily impaired vision (Melville 21). However, Bartleby’s eyes show no sign of improvement, and the narrator becomes annoyed with the scrivener for refusing to accomplish any other tasks. Though Bartleby becomes “like a millstone” to the narrator, he is also sorry for him because he seems “alone, absolutely alone in the universe” (Melville 22). Furlani observes, “[The narrator] can congratulate himself on the largeness of his sympathies, his Christian forbearance, his rich vein of charity dispensed at any opportunity” (348). The narrator believes that he is dealing with Bartleby in an honorable and even Christian fashion by allowing the scrivener to remain in his employment. However, his motivation is impure and thus his charitable actions are short lived. Within a short period of time, the narrator once again attempts to rid himself of Bartleby. Yet, once again, Bartleby would “prefer not to” leave (22).

When Bartleby once more refuses to quit the office, the narrator is outraged. Indeed, thoughts and feelings of murder even arise within the narrator. But as these murderous thoughts well up within the attorney, he is reminded of “the divine injunction: ‘A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another’” (Melville 25). As the narrator ponders this divine injunction, he is once more on the verge of greater insight (Furlani 349). However, he responds incorrectly to this injunction. Selfishness and temporal thinking continue to blind the narrator and cause an inability to respond to Bartleby out of true Christian charity. According to Davis, “The lawyer…vascillate[s] between Christian charity tainted with earthly self-interest and earthly business tainted with Christian ideals” (190). In other words, the lawyer does realize that his interaction with Bartleby needs to change. His encounter with Bartleby’s solitude, isolation, and miserable existence has changed the way he looks at Bartleby. However, his reaction towards that changed perspective is not sufficient. He does not change from his former characteristic of apathy, safety, and lack of feeling for humanity. His attempts to interact with Bartleby in a “Christian” fashion are unsuccessful because his mind is still fixed and focused on temporal things. The narrator has not yet allowed his encounter to Bartleby to change him enough to turn him to action.

The narrator’s solution to the problem of Bartleby is to remove himself from the situation entirely. Rather than dealing with Bartleby and bringing some form of resolution to the circumstances, the attorney simply moves to a new office building. However, changing locations does not resolve the dilemma that Bartleby caused him to encounter. Despite the fact that the lawyer no longer occupies the same buildings, Bartleby still “prefers not to” leave his present location. The new tenant of the building quickly seeks out the narrator for information concerning the strange apparition who constantly haunts the building. Following his usual pattern of inactivity and apathy, the narrator responds that Bartleby is nothing to him and that he knows nothing of the scrivener (Melville 29). When pressed further, the lawyer makes a half-hearted attempt to reach Bartleby, but Bartleby does not wish to remove himself or to accept the lawyer’s offer of help.

The new tenants of the office are not as charitably minded as the lawyer, and they decide to sent Bartleby to the Tombs as a vagrant. When the narrator goes to visit Bartleby, the scrivener greets him by saying, “I know you, and I want nothing to say to you” (Melville 32). The narrator feels a sense of both pain and guilt at Bartleby’s statement. Perhaps his feeling of guilt is based on the fact that, deep down, the narrator knows he could have responded differently to Bartleby. In one last act of charity, the narrator agrees to pay the grub man to serve Bartleby food. By all appearances, it seems that the narrator has done all that he can.

The narrator’s moment of true change does not occur until after Bartleby’s death. When he observes the dead Bartleby on the ground of the prison, he states that he is asleep “with kings and counsellors” (Melville 33). The narrator here makes an allusion to the book of Job and “evokes a Bartleby redeemed from the world’s vain, decaying splendors, a righteous Bartleby standing over the ruins that the attorney’s imagination constantly projects” (Furlani 350). The attorney realizes that Bartleby has left this life and gone on to the next. Again, his temporal viewpoint of the world is challenged as he realizes that Bartleby has now reached a point of true transcendence.

I submit that the narrator does not truly reach a point of altered perspective until he observes Bartleby dead on the ground and later learns more of Bartleby’s past. The very fact that the narrator wrote this story illustrates that he was affected and changed by his encounter with Bartleby. If he was not altered by this experience, why spend time reflecting back on it later? Furlani argues that the narrator never does gain greater insight and that no true change occurs in the narrator (350). However, I believe that the closing lines of this narrative serve to illustrate that the narrator’s view of Bartleby and of humanity is changed. The narrator comes to realize that the qualities he possessed which he first thought to be virtues are nothing more than “weakness and failure” (Dan McCall 272). As the narrator reflects on Bartleby’s position in the Dead Letter Office, he observes that Bartleby’s former employment must have played a part in causing him to become the pathetic, isolated, melancholy character that he was.

The narrator’s tone in the epilogue of the story is decidedly different from that which he uses during the body of his tale. Morgan observes, “By the last page the smug self-assurance heard in the narrative voice of the first pages has surely altered to something considerably more thoughtful” (267). Though he does not respond correctly to Bartleby, the narrator learns something about humanity through his encounter with the scrivener. He learns that he cannot approach everything in life from a simply rationalistic and temporal outlook. He learns that sometimes mankind needs to be ministered to in his soul, not simply through monetary or temporal means. And he learns that sometimes taking the safe or easy way is not always the best way.

Though the narrator displays evidences of change, a certain amount of ambiguity also exists concerning how much the narrator has really changed. Will this changed perspective last? The next time the narrator encounters human suffering, will his response be different? Will he remember the lessons he learned from Bartleby and respond in true Christian charity, or will he once again return to his apathetic and temporal view of mankind? Only the narrator knows.

Works Cited

Bertani, Lea and Vozar Newman. A Reader’s Guide to the Short Stories of Herman Melville. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1986.
Davis, Todd F. “The Narrator’s Dilemma in ‘Bartleby the Scrivener’: The Excellently Illustrated Re-statement of a Problem.” Studies in Short Fiction 34.2 (1997): 183-192.
Furlani, Andre. “Bartleby the Socratic.” Studies in Short Fiction 34 (1997): 335-356.

McCall, Dan. “The Reliable Narrator.” Melville’s Short Novels: A Norton Critical Edition. Ed. Dan McCall. New York: Norton & Company, 2002. 266-286.

Melville, Herman. “Bartleby, the Scrivener.” In Melville’s Short Novels. Ed. Dan McCall. New York: Norton & Company, 2002. 3-34.

Morgan, Winifred. “ ‘Bartleby’ and the Failure of Conventional Virtue.” Renascense 45 (1993): 257-271.

Oliver, Egbert S. “A Second Look at ‘Bartleby.’” Bartleby the Inscrutable. Ed. Thomas Inge. Connecticut: Archon Books, 1979. 61-74

The Pearl: An Anti-Pelagian Work

Poetry is used to accomplish a variety of goals. A poem can extol the beauty of a lover, commentate on social and political issues, or admire the loveliness of a landscape. Poetry can also be used to present philosophical or theological arguments in a form that will be widely read by a large audience. The Pearl poem is a work with clearly theological overtones. While many scholars focus on The Pearl poem as an allegorical or symbolic work, many miss the theology that shapes the poem. The Pearl is theological in nature, and the author makes a bold assertion that goes against many of the accepted theological opinions of his day. Though the author of The Pearl lived in a works-based society, he did not hold to this theological view. Rather, the author makes a strong argument for salvation by grace alone. This paper will discuss the theological concept of Pelagianism and argue that The Pearl poem is essentially an anti-Pelagian work.

In order to fully understand the importance of the theological assertions within The Pearl, it is necessary to look at it in its historical context. The author of The Pearl is unknown and many have speculated as to who the author could have been. Due to his great knowledge of theology and the classics, it is argued that the Pearl-poet “was in all probability a clerk.”[1] Carleton F. Brown asserts, “One finds evidence of theological training in the intimate acquaintance with the Bible which the author of The Pearl everywhere displays.”[2] Though the exact date of the work is unknown, scholars estimate that this poem was written after 1360.[3]

The Pearl was written during a time of great change in England. Charles Moorman states, “The late fourteenth century was in every way a century of contrasting and shifting values.”[4] Catholicism was beginning to break down, and the unity of medieval “social, political, and religious thought” began to dissolve.[5] The author thus lived during the closing of an era, and his ideas represent the new era that was to come.

The Pearl-poet lived during a time of great theological controversy. During this time period, theologians debated about two central theological issues: predestination and free will, and the importance of grace in salvation.[6] Brown explains further that this controversy stemmed from the Augustinian and Pelagian controversy of the Patristic era, and that the Pelagian view was widely accepted in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.[7] According to Brown, “Emphasis was laid more on and more upon man’s free-will and consequently upon the positive merit obtainable by right conduct, while the doctrine of Augustine, that salvation was entirely a matter of predestination and divine grace, was pushed into the background.”[8]

In order to understand the importance of the theological assertions within The Pearl poem, it is important to begin by understanding the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius was a British monk who lived at the beginning of the fifth century.[9] Pelagius emphasized man’s free will and brought into question the necessity of grace leading to salvation. According to Warfield, the heresy of Pelagius “consisted not in the emphasis he laid on free will, but rather in the fact that, in emphasizing free will, he denied the ruin of the race and the necessity of grace.”[10] In essence, Pelagius called into question the total depravity of man. The Pelagian controversy was an assault to the very foundations of Christianity. Warfield goes on to state, “The real question at issue was whether there was any real need for Christianity at all; whether by his own power man might not attain eternal felicity; whether the function of Christianity was to save, or only to render an eternity of happiness more easily attainable to man.”[11] Clearly, Pelagianism was no small issue and was not to be taken lightly.

Essentially, Pelagianism called into question whether or not the grace of God was needed for the salvation of man. According to Pelagius, man was able “to do all that righteousness can demand—to work out not only his own salvation, but also his own perfection.”[12] In other words, Pelagius placed man’s salvation totally in the power of man himself rather than in the grace and power of God working in the lives of men. Pelagius argued that God would not demand that man do something that was impossible. In Pelagius’s mind, if total depravity was indeed true, then man could not follow God’s command to be perfect even as he is perfect. Man’s sin would keep him away from the perfection which God demands, and thus man would not be able to fulfill the command of God. Warfield explains it in this way: “God had endowed His creature with a capacity (possibilitas) or ability (posse) for action, and it was for him to use it. Man was thus a machine, which, just because it was well made, needed no divine interference for its right working; and the Creator, having once framed him, and endowed him with the posse, henceforth leaves the velle and the esse to him.”[13] In Pelagius’s mind, because God created man with the ability and the capacity to perform everything he asked of them, there was no need for God to become involved in the life of man.

When Pelagius spoke of grace, he meant something quite different than what most theologians accept as truth. The Pelagian view of grace “meant…the primal endowment of man with free will, and the subsequent aid given him in order to its proper use by the revelation of the law and the teaching of the gospel, and, above all, by the forgiveness of past sins in Christ and by Christ’s holy example.”[14] Essentially, Pelagians argued for merely external help. Because God has endowed man with the ability to follow God’s law, man does not need God to work inwardly within his heart. Rather, God sent Christ in order to provide an example of proper and right behavior. Through observing the impeccable, perfect behavior of Christ, man is able to gain a better understanding of the proper way he is to act. Thus, the work of Christ does not serve to actually aid and benefit man’s soul, but simply to provide him with an example of correct living.

Augustine stood in direct opposition to Pelagius’s views and argued for the necessity of God’s grace in the salvation of mankind. Augustine held to the belief that God originally created man as a perfect being “and endowed him with human faculties, including free will.”[15] Adam, however, abused his free will, chose to sin, and led to the downfall of the entire human race. Because all men are fallen and depraved, they are in need of God’s grace to restore them to a right relationship with him. For Augustine, then, “grace is assistance, help from God…[and] may be called spiritual aid.”[16] Thus, grace is not merely external but is also internal. Though Christ does indeed provide mankind with an example to follow, his death also provides the only means of salvation through the grace of God working upon a sinner’s heart. Augustine also points out that the Holy Spirit is poured out into the lives of believers in order to provide them with internal, not external, help.[17] Grace is given to man according to the goodness of God and is not based at all upon man’s merit.[18] Thus, in Augustine’s view, grace is necessarily the internal working of God upon the depraved soul of mankind.

This concept of the grace of God is very clearly seen throughout The Pearl, and it is evident that the Pearl-poet was keenly interested in the theological issues of his day. The concept of the grace of God in the lives of men is specifically seen in the dialogue between Pearl and the jeweler. As Pearl dialogues with the jeweler, she informs him that the Lamb has chosen her to be his bride and has “crowned [her] queen in bliss to shine.”[19] The jeweler is baffled by Pearl’s assertion and cannot understand how she, who died at so young an age, could merit such a favored and exalted position in heaven.[20] Part of his perplexity stems from the fact that the jeweler believes Mary to be the only queen of heaven, and cannot understand how one so young could supplant the Virgin’s sacred place.[21] Pearl patiently explains that she did not displace Mary, but that God allots each a place in heaven based upon his good will, and that all are content with whatever position he grants to them in heaven.[22]

Despite Pearl’s explanation, her father is still not satisfied with her answer. He simply cannot understand how she, who died at the young age of two, could possibly merit such a position of honor and esteem within God’s court. He states, “That courtesy gives its gifts too free, / If it be sooth that you now say.”[23] Thus, not only does the jeweler call Pearl into question, he also questions God’s decision to grant Pearl such a status. He states that it would be acceptable for Pearl to be “a countess, damsel…or lady of even less array, / but a queen! It is too high a place.”[24] In the jeweler’s mind, God has granted Pearl an absolutely unmerited and undeserved position.

Pearl responds to her father’s objections by appealing to the grace of God, and specifically appeals to God’s grace based upon the parable of the Vineyard. She states, “Neither time nor place his grace confine…/ For just is all he doth assign, / And nothing can He work but right.”[25] In the parable of the vineyard, the master hired various workers at different times of the day, but all received the same wages. Pearl directly “applies this parable to herself: it was eventide when she came to the vineyard, but she received the same reward with those who had toiled for years in the service of the Lord.”[26] Even after Pearl’s explanation of the parable, her father remains unconvinced. According to Rene Wellek, “The assertion that a baptized infant will receive equal reward with the adult is directly opposed to the established opinions of the theologians.”[27] The reaction of Pearl’s father illustrates the deeply entrenched views of the time.

Because her father still does not understand the basis for her position in heaven, Pearl launches into another explanation in which she specifically and repeatedly appeals to the grace of God. Brown believes that the Pearl-poet is making a deliberate, intentional theological point: “The author is laboring to prove that, since salvation is not at all a matter of merit but of grace, even a baptized child dying in infancy will receive in the heavenly kingdom a reward equal to that of the Christian who has lived a life of righteousness and holy works.”[28] Essentially, the author goes against the established viewpoint of the day and makes a bold assertion that there are no grades of reward in heaven, but that all merit lies in Christ alone, and all rewards are given solely based upon the grace and mercy of God.

Pearl’s father continues to find her explanations unreasonable and cannot wrap his mind around fathom the concept that God bestows grace and reward apart from works. Her father’s inability to understand echoes the commonly accepted position of the day. He continues to question Pearl about the high standing she has in heaven, and he reiterates that such a reward is unmerited and goes against everything he knows and has been taught.

To answer her father’s continued objections, Pearl’s argument takes on another edge in which she specifically and repeatedly argues for the grace of God over and above human merit. Her argument is made in five different sections, and she ends each section by stating, “For the grace of God is great enow.”[29] She begins the first section by explaining that the concept of “more or less” does not exist in the heavenly realm because Christ is supreme over all.[30] She refers back to her previous explanation of the Parable of the Vineyard and reiterates that all are of “equal hire” and each one gains whatever reward Christ chooses to give.[31] She goes on to state that it is Christ who gives pardon when sinful mankind bows to him and seeks forgiveness of sin. To emphasize her point, she ends by stating that the grace of God is good enough.

Pearl goes on to explain that she has not supplanted any position in heaven and that the reward given to her is not too costly. She points out to her father that many men turn away from the right path during the course of their lives, and that by dying at such a young age, she avoided falling into many sins that beset others. She once more appeals to the concept of mercy and grace, and states that all men must rely upon the mercy and grace of God to steer and direct their steps. Apart from God’s mercy and grace, man cannot benefit himself, cannot be pious, and cannot gain any eternal reward. Again, it is “the grace of God” that is good enough.[32]

Pearl also appeals to baptism as a means of grace. This notion of baptism plays an important role in understanding The Pearl poem in light of the Pelagian controversy. According to the theology of the day, baptism was “absolutely necessary for salvation.”[33] Augustine argued that infants who were baptized were effectually saved, but those who were not baptized were damned. Infant baptism was important to Augustine because he believed that every individual is born in sin, and even “those who die in infancy are, in Adam, children of wrath even as others.”[34] Thus, it is important that the Pearl-poet specifically refers to the necessity of infant baptism as a means to save an infant from eternal damnation. Because Pelagius did not believe in the doctrine of original sin, he did not espouse the necessity of infant baptism. By referring to infant baptism as a means of grace, the Pearl-poet displays his theological position.

As she explains the necessity of infant baptism, Pearl also expounds on the fact that those who die as infants have fulfilled the plan and purpose ordained for them. She reminds her father that even infants who die have “worked at [God’s] design.”[35] Because they have accomplished their divine purpose, they receive their due reward. Once again, Pearl reiterates that this reward is received because “the grace of God is great enow.”[36]

In the next segment of the poem, the Pearl-poet provides a staunchly anti-Pelagian viewpoint as Pearl discusses the fall of man and the salvation of Christ. This section of the poem begins by Pearl explaining that God originally created man as a perfect being who lived in perfect bliss.[37] However, Adam chose to partake of the forbidden fruit, and through that action he damned all mankind to eternal judgment. This viewpoint is anti-Pelagian in that it views Adam’s fall as affecting all of mankind. Because Adam chose to sin, his sin is now passed on to all men. Pearl goes on to explain that Christ came in order to heal man’s broken relationship to God, and that it is only through his shed blood that man can find forgiveness and restoration.[38] She ends by once again by stating that man can be reconciled to God because “the grace of God grew great enow.”[39]

Pearl continues to discuss the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ in the next segment of the poem. She elaborates on the importance of both the blood and the water. The blood of Christ cleanses from sin, “redeem[s]…from the pains of hell,” and provides insurance against the second death.[40] The water refers to baptism. According to Pearl, it is necessary for both the blood and the water to work together in order to fully cleanse one from sin. It is the water of baptism that “washes away the trespass fell / By which Adam drowned us in deathly tide.”[41] In order to be redeemed and saved from the wretched plight of Adam, one must be cleansed in the blood of Christ and also go through the waters of baptism. Just as in every other segment, Pearl once again reiterates that God saves those whom he sets aside because his grace is good enough.

Pearl then goes on to discuss the necessity of grace working with repentance. In order for a man to receive the freely bestowed grace of God, he must first turn to God and seek forgiveness of sins. The Pearl­-poet thus once again displays a clearly anti-Pelagian viewpoint. The author recognizes that salvation occurs through the grace of God and the work of Jesus Christ. The Pearl-poet does not present Christ as a mere example of right conduct and behavior but as the very means of the forgiveness of sins. Through stating that man must seek the grace of God through the salvation of Christ, the author once more illustrates that the work of Christ on the cross is necessary for the salvation of mankind. In and of himself, humanity cannot measure up simply through good works. The blood of Christ and the forgiveness of sins are crucial to restoring man to a right relationship with God. It is only through the grace of God that mankind can be saved.

Throughout The Pearl, the author makes a strong theological argument for salvation by grace alone. The poet displays a strong understanding both of the theological position of his day and also clearly sets forth his own theological position within this work. This poem is essentially anti-Pelagian in nature and makes a very clear argument for salvation by grace through faith in Christ.

---

[1] Charles Moorman, The Pearl-Poet (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1968), 29.

[2] Carleton F. Brown, The Author of The Pearl Considered in Light of His Theological Opinions (Standford: The Modern language Association of America, 1904), 119-120.

[3] Moorman, 33.

[4] Ibid., 19.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Brown, 128.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Benjamin B. Warfield, “Introductory Essay on Augustin and the Pelagian Controversy,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886), 9.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid., 10.

[12] Ibid., 11.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid., 12.

[15] Ibid., 79.

[16] Ibid., 80.

[17] Ibid., 81.

[18] Ibid.

[19] J.R.R. Tolkien, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl, and Sir Orfeo (New York: Ballantine Books, 1975), 138.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Brown, 130.

[22] Tolkien, 139-140.

[23] Ibid., 141.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Brown, 131.

[27] Rene Wellek, “The Pearl: An Interpretation of the Middle-English Poem,” in The Pearl, 11.

[28] Brown, 132.

[29] Tolkien, 145.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid., 146.

[33] Warfield, 85.

[34] Ibid., 86.

[35] Tolkien, 146.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid., 147.

[41] Ibid.