- "Evidently, some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ" (1:7).
- ". . . the one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty" (5:10). From the other references to Paul's opponents, it's apparent that "the one" here means "anyone" or "everyone." Paul is not thinking of an individual here.
- "As for those agitators . . . " (5:12).
So, who are these opponents of Paul? What sort of confusing messages do they teach? And what are they saying about the Apostle himself? A few passages give us a good bit of information that we can use to answer the second question: What do they teach?
For example, in 3:10-14, Paul speaks against any attempt to rely on one's observance of the law.
Later, in 4:8-11, he compares and contrasts "knowing God" with a very different experience in which the Galatian Christians, prior to their conversion, were enslaved by "those weak and miserable principles." Paul says he knows that the Galatians are now "turning back" because they are "observing special days and months and seasons and years." These would presumably include, above all, observance of the Sabbath, but also times like the Day of Atonement, New Moons, and the Passover, etc.
Finally, in 5:1-12, Paul argues against the requirement of circumcision for Gentile converts to Christianity. And, he makes a case against Gentiles themselves giving in to such demands.
So, it appears that the problem is, following Paul's establishment of the churches in Galatia, other Jewish Christians have arrived telling the new Christians that observance of Mosaic commands is not optional. Rather, it is mandatory. Scholars often call these teachers Judaizers, Jewish Christians who disagreed with what they regarded as Paul's overly-liberal teaching, and who contradicted that teaching.
The message of the Judaizers was news to the Galatians. Originally, they were told by Paul and Barnabas that the standard for everyone, both Jew and Gentile, was faith in Jesus Christ, and repentance and obedience towards God. This did not include biblical-traditional mandates such as Sabbath observance, circumcision for the men, and kosher dietary regulations.
Naturally, because of such differences, the Galatians would have been confused. They would have wondered which side was right. And they would have asked the judaizing teachers questions like, "If your version of the Christian message is true, then why did Paul teach us what he did, something that was very different?"
At this point, the Judaizers apparently answered by saying that Paul preached a different message because he was (a) confused and (b) driven by bad motives. From Paul's protests in the letter, we can "overhear" a handful of such accusations. It seems that Paul believes that his opponents have leveled the following charges against him:
1. Paul told you what he did because he is a people pleaser. He wants to be liked by others. And that is precisely why he lowered the standards for becoming, in Christ, a true Jew.
This seems to be what Paul is trying to deny in 1:10: "Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." But the Judaizers didn't stop there. They also said something like,
2. Paul learned the gospel from other people. What he knows of the Christian message, he was taught by someone else.
In 1:11-12, Paul shoots back. The gospel I preached, he says, is not something I received "from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." In 1:13-14, Paul recounts his previous way of life in Judaism. Why does he do that, and at this point in the letter? He seems to be asking the Galatians, "What could possibly have knocked me off of my determined course, other than divine intervention?" Also, by relating some of his early-Christian biography, even giving specific time periods, Paul clearly intends to distance himself from Jerusalem and the Apostles who lived there. His implication is that he could not have gotten his message from them because, following his conversion, it was a long time before he even met any Apostles. But the opposition wasn't through. Apparently, they also said things like,
3. Having been taught the true gospel in Jerusalem, Paul traveled to places like Galatia where he misrepresented the message he had learned from the real Apostles.
Paul is clearly responding to that sort of accusation in 2:1-10. Notice the implicit questions in this section. Paul wants to ask two things in particular:
a. If the Apostles at Jerusalem believe that circumcision is so important, why didn't they insist on it for Titus when he was right there with them? (2:3)
b. If the leaders in Jerusalem disagree with my gospel, then why did they extend to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when I reported to them exactly what I preach? (especially 2:2 and 9).
Yes, says Paul, there are differences between myself and Peter. But those differences have nothing to do with message. They are differences only in target audience. I have been given the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, while Peter, on the other hand, has been given the task of preaching the gospel to the Jews (verse 7).
But the Judaizers had another arrow to shoot at Paul. Apparently, there was a story making the rounds. According to some, when the Apostle Peter came to Antioch while Paul was there, the two of them had a heated discussion, some sort of falling out. The agitators took this story to mean that when Peter and Paul compared notes at Antioch, they discovered that they did not, in fact, preach the same message.
Is this what Paul is responding to in 2:11-16? It seems so. Paul appears to be offering an alternate interpretation of the story the Galatians have heard. According to Paul's version, yes, he had had a spat with Peter. But it wasn't because the two of them believed different things. It was because Peter "was in the wrong" (v. 11). He had come to Antioch, where he enjoyed table fellowship with Gentile Christians. However, when "men came from James" (v. 12) Peter distanced himself from his Gentile brothers because he was afraid of what the James people would think and say. Peter's actions, says Paul, were a practical rejection of "the truth of the gospel" (v. 14). Something had to be done! So, says Paul, "I opposed him to his face" (v. 11). I said to Peter, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" (v. 14). "Peter was acting like a hypocrite," says Paul. "And that's the reason why we got into it at Antioch."
Okay, I know, there's so much more that can be said about Galatians. But I need to stop here. Thoughts? Observations? Questions?
4 comments:
Pau's main thrust in the Book of Galatans was primarily two-fold. First, to rebuff the Judaizers for preaching a false gospel, and second, to correct the misunderstanding of the churches of alatia and bring them back to faith in hrist. From the very beginning of the epistle, Paul establishes his divine authority as "an apostle (not from men, neither through men, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead) (1:1-2). Also, the more the Judaizers belittled Paul and his message, the more it emphasised their validity because "the more you rub ttruth the brighter it shines."
I love the fact that even some of the original "church fathers," I use that term lightly, had falling outs and were not afraid to call one another out. There is a practical, currently occurring problem that Paul, either intentionally or unintentionally, addresses in commenting on Peter. Teachers, preachers, and others in charge of delegation should follow this example.
Second, I think we can see a bigger picture of the struggle between Paul and Judaizers in Acts. Even though the council in Jerusalem requested those requirements of the Gentiles so that table fellowship could be practiced between kosher Jews and non-kosher Gentiles, you can still feel the tension between Paul and the others.
The comment from rfoster999 states very well Paul's rebuttal of the Judaizers in his letter to the Galatians. However, in my humble opinion, there were other forces working against Paul. For one the Gnostics, whom John and Polycarp fought with in Ephesus and we cannot forget the Romans themselves. It seems odd that the Jewish Christian observed the Mosaic laws and were Christians, however, the Gentile Christians did not have to obey the Mosaic laws.
I would like to point out some key things about the circumcision issue that we see in Acts 15:1, which states, “Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
The men of Judea understood this from Genesis 17:10-14, God has commanded Abraham to circumcise himself and his descendents. This is where many people believe that one must be circumcised in order to be a Christian. But what most people don’t know is that Christians were freed from circumcision during Moses’ time. Jesus also stated that we should not judge by appearances.
This statement from the men of Judea can clearly be disproved by other verses. Some of the verses include, Genesis 1:31, Genesis 1:27 and as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 12:18, “But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.”
Post a Comment