Bibliotheca
Sacra 147 (July 1990) 329-350.
Copyright © 1990 by
Who Were Paul's Opponents
in
Walt
Russell
Associate Professor of
New Testament
Why Is the
Identity of Paul's Opponents an Issue?
Paul's opponents in
tians because the epistle is
essentially a response to their threat to
the churches of
opponents are mentioned in every chapter (1:6-9;
2:4-5; 3:1; 4:17; 5:10,
12;
6:12-13). Conservative scholars have historically assumed that
these foes were Judaizers
and have interpreted the text in that
light. However, in the last 70 years a persistent
critique now gaining
widespread acceptance says that the Judaizer identity is totally
inadequate in explaining crucial verses like
Galatians 5:13, "For you
were called to freedom, brethren, only do not turn
your freedom into
an opportunity for the flesh, but through love
serve one another."
While Paul was apparently addressing
some sort of Judaistic
aberration in Galatians 3-4, these critics argue,
he was also overtly
attacking an antinomian aberration in Galatians
5-6, and the Judais-
tic identity cannot encompass this additional
aberration. Therefore
an increasing number of New Testament scholars are
advocating a
different identity for Paul's opponents in
should not blithely continue to assume the correctness
of the Judaizer
identity. They must see if their assumptions need
revision and if
this will aid in understanding the latter part of
Galatians.
The Three Major
Views of the Opponents' Identity
Three major views of Paul's
opponents in
merous minor views. The
traditional view is that the opponents
were "Judaizers"
pressuring Gentiles to live as if they were Jews.
329
330 Bibliotheca
Sacra / July—September 1990
The
two-opponent view holds that both Judaizers and libertinistic
"pneumatics" plagued Paul in
ish Christians view is that
there was one group of opponents with
both Judaistic and libertinistic traits in some of the peripheral
groups within Judaism and
THE
TRADITIONAL VIEW: JUDAIZERS
Since the second-century Marcionite Prologues
to Galatians (pre-
served only in Latin translations), it has been
inferred that Paul's
opponents were overzealous Jewish Christians from
advocated in
quiring Gentile Christians to
attach themselves to ethnic
identification was carefully confirmed
by John Calvin1 and more ca-
sually assumed by Martin
Luther.2 Since Calvin's and
Luther's day
the majority of Protestant scholars have identified
Paul's opponents
in some way with the Jewish Christians from
This identity was solidified in the
19th century by F. C. Baur of
the
tive key to all Paul's
writings. Baur's reconstruction of the history of
the early church does not so much pit Paul against
the
apostles, as is popularly understood, but against
the party of Jewish
Christians
identified with James and the
Judaizers had an Ebionite
tendency and had not broken out of the
limits of Judaism in their understanding of
Christianity and the suf-
ficiency of Christ's ministry.4
To Baur, the Epistle to the Galatians
was a microcosm of the massive struggle between
Pauline and Jewish
Christianity. So while Baur never wrote a commentary on Gala-
tians, his central and
emphatic identification of Paul's opponents in
opposed major portions of Baur's
reconstruction of early events.
Schmithals summarized the situation, saying,
There are few problems in the realm of New Testament introduc-
tion in which the scholars of all eras are so
unanimously and indis-
putably of one mind as here.
1
John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians,
Philippians and
Colossians,
trans. T. H. L. Parker, Calvin's New Testament Commen-
aries 11, ed. David W.
Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (1556; reprint,
Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965), pp. 4-7.
2 Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians, trans. Erasmus Middleton, ed. John P.
Fallowes (
1979, p. 2.
3 Ferdinand C. Baur,
Ausgenwahlte Werke in Einzelausgahen, ed. K. Scholder
(reprint,
4 Ferdinand C. Baur,
Paul, His Life and Works, trans. E.
Zeller, 2 vols. (
Williams and Norgate,
1875), 1:113, 129-30.
Who Were Paul's
Opponents in
The heretics in
mand the observance of the Jewish law on a greater or
lesser scale, but
in any case
including circumcision: thus they are Christians in whose
opinion
membership in the eschatological community of the Messiah
who has
appeared in Jesus depends upon membership in the national
cultic
union, constituted through the rite of circumcision, of the ancient
people of
the covenant. This thesis is the presupposition of the exege-
sis of the Galatian epistle in the commentaries, not its conclusion;
and
it can be
such a presupposition because no one would deny it.5
Schmithals
himself denies the traditional identity of Paul's
opponents, holding, instead, that they were
Gnostics. Before
Schmithals wrote in the 1970s and 80s, the status
of the Judaizers
identity was generally unquestioned. Ironically
some recent New
Testament
introductions have assumed some form of his position.6
Viewing Paul's Galatian
opponents as Judaizers seems supported
by strong internal evidence. Those who
"distort the gospel" in the
churches seem to have come from the outside (1:7)
and they confused
the churches (1:7; 5:10, 12). They seem to have
been Christians, since
they were offering "a different gospel"
(1:6) and desired to avoid
persecution from the Jewish community (6:12). Paul's
focus on
the opponents' origin from this area, though this
is not held as
firmly as other aspects of their identity. Their
Jewish roots seem
unassailable given their emphasis on
circumcision (5:2; 6:12-13), ob-
servance of the Mosaic Law (3:2;
5:4) and certain festivals (4:10), and
apparent interest in being "sons of
Abraham" (3:6-29; 4:21-31). With
its straightforward reading of Galatians and its
correlation with
Acts
15, many scholars continue to espouse this traditional view in
standard New Testament introductions,7
technical monographs,8 re-
cent commentaries on Galatians,9 and
recent journal articles.10
5 Walter Schmithals,
Paul and the Gnostics, trans. John E.
Steely (
Abingdon Press, 1972), p. 1 3.
6 E.g., Helmut Koester Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: History and Lit-
erature of Early Christianity (
Fortress
Press, 1982), pp. 118-19.
7 E.g., Werner Georg
Kummel, Introduction to the New
Testament, rev.
trans. Howard Clark Kee
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975), pp. 298-301.
8 E.g., George Howard, Paul: Crisis in
graph Series 35 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1979), pp. 1-19.
9 E.g., Ronald Y. Fung,
The Epistle to the Galatians, The New
International Com-
mentary on the New Testament,
ed. F. F. Bruce (
lishing
10 E.g.,
J. Louis Martyn, "A Law-Observant
Galatians,"
Scottish Journal of Theology 38
(1985): 307-24, and John M. G. Barclay,
"Mirror-Reading
a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case," Journal for the Study
of the New Testament 31 (1988): 73-93.
332 Bibliotheca
Sacra / July—September 1990
Worthy of inclusion under this major
view is the position argued
by Johannes Munck.11 While he was
reacting against Baur's bifurca-
tion of the early church
into competing Pauline and Jewish segments,
Munck nonetheless saw Paul's Galatian
opponents as Judaizers. The
uniqueness of his view is that he saw these Judaizers as Gentile
Christians
from within
cumcised, according to Galatians
6:13, in which Paul used the present
participle of oi[
peritemno<menoi to describe them.13
While Munck per-
ceived himself to be opposite Baur with this particular view, his
identifying of Paul's opponents does not lead to any
substantial dif-
ference from Baur's in interpreting the epistle as a whole. The same
can be said of the similar position of A. E.
Harvey,14 who identifies
Paul's
opponents as "not Jews by birth, but Gentiles who have only
recently become Jewish proselytes, or who are
still contemplating do-
ing so."15
The uniqueness of
these proselytes were pressuring fellow Christians to
avoid persecu-
tion from the synagogue by
adopting Jewish practices, not Jewish
theology.
phasis on strict adherence to
Jewish practices, rather than to Jewish
orthodoxy.16 Paul's tactic was to show the theological
consequences
of embracing Jewish practices (Gal. 6:12-13).
THE
TWO-OPPONENT VIEW: JUDAIZERS AND ANTINOMIANS
In reaction to Baur's
dominant reconstruction of the early church,
Lutgert17
opposed the one opponent/Judaizers view by arguing
for the
additional resistance of a second group in
the existence of the Judaizers,
Lutgert was convinced that an even
more threatening group was the primary focus of
Paul's attack in
Galatians. Like Luther before him,18
though seeing them more as an
organized party, Lutgert
identified this second group of Christians
as the antinomians who "die Freiheit zum Antrieb fur das Fleisch
11 Johannes Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (
Press,
1959), pp. 87-134.
12 Ibid., p. 87.
13 Ibid., pp. 87-89.
14 A.
15 Ibid., p. 324.
16 Ibid., pp. 327-29.
17 Wilhelm Lutgert, Gesetz and Geist: Pine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte des
Galaterbriefes. Beitrage zur Forderung
christlicher Theologie, vol. 22, book 6
(Gi.itersloh:
Bertelsmann, 1919).
18 Luther, Commentary
on Galatians, pp. 325-29.
Who Were Paul's
Opponents in
gebrauchen."19 The
thread that holds Galatians together as Paul
addressed this two-front battle is the subject of
the Law.20 Paul's ar-
guments with both the Judaizers and the antinomians involve the
Law and its relationship to the Christian life. Therefore, Lutgert
argued, Paul vacillated between addressing these two
groups as he
wrote Galatians. For example while Galatians 3-4 is
primarily con-
cerned with the Judaizers, Paul's focus on them ends at 5:6 and he be-
gan to address the
antinomians' abuses of the Law in 5:7.21 The ma-
jority of Galatians 5–6 is no
longer seen as Paul's defensive limitation
of the boundaries of freedom in light of possible Judaizers' criticism,
but rather as a much more aggressive and overt
attack on the antino-
mians' real abuses.22
Lutgert's
views were not broadly disseminated until Ropes
championed them in a small monograph in 1929.23
Ropes made only
minor adjustments to Lutgert's
thesis and sought to demonstrate it by
briefly but systematically going through
Galatians chapter by chap-
ter. Interestingly enough,
he perceived the break from the lengthy
Judaizers' discussion of Galatians 3–4 to be at
5:10, not 5:6 as Lutgert
had argued. Ropes suggests that Paul began the
practical section
with 5:11. "The transition to the next topic is
an important one,
sharper than any other transition in the
epistle. Our theory requires
the break to be made after verse 10, not after
verse 12."24 As
Fletcher
has wryly noted, "For such a sharp division, it does not
seem that it would be necessary to rely upon one's
presuppositions to
discern it."25 Weaknesses like
this have hindered acceptance of Lilt-
gert's and Ropes's
two-opponent view. Nevertheless their emphasis
on the presence of libertinistic
"pneumatici" or "spiritual
persons"26
helped shape the next reaction to the traditional
view.
THE
GNOSTIC/SYNCRETISTIC JEWISH CHRISTIAN VIEW
Though the identification of
Gnostics as Paul's opponents in Gal-
atia tends to be associated
with Walter Schmithals, other scholars
19 Lutgert, Gesetz und Geist, p.
16.
20 Ibid., p. 9.
21 Ibid., pp. 27-28.
22 Ibid, pp. 14-19.
23 James H. Ropes, The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians, Harvard
Theological Studies 14 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1929).
24 Ibid., p. 38.
25 Douglas K. Fletcher, The Singular Argument of Paul's Letter to the Galatians
(PhD
diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1982), p. 42.
26
Ropes, The Singular Problem
of the Epistle to the Galatians, p. 10.
334 Bibliotheca
Sacra / July—September 1990
had previously written of a Gnostic presence in
Galatia.27 However,
it is Schmithals who
firmly ties Paul's ministry to the combating of
some form of first-century Gnosticism.28 Schmithals follows the Cor-
inthian/Galatian epistles' order of Lutgert's study and his identifi-
cation of Gnostics in both
communities. Like Lutgert, Schmithals
con-
siders that "the picture
of the Galatians heresy is to be filled out in
details from the Corinthian epistles."29
While building on Lutgert's
and Ropes's
identification of libertinistic pneumatics in
Schmithals (and others after him) significantly
deviates from that
theory by positing a single battlefront in
audience theory of the two-opponent view is
rightly criticized and
rejected as unsatisfactory.30 In its
place is offered a single group of
opponents who manifest both sets of
characteristics previously at-
tached to the Judaizers and antinomian pneumatics.
Rather than refuting the traditional
view of Judaizers in Gala-
tia, Schmithals's
strategy is to develop a coherent picture of Gnos-
tics in
Galatians. To do this, however, involves some
question-begging on
his part. For example in the traditional view
Galatians 3-4 is seen
as the heart of the argumentation against the Judaizers. Rather
than contesting the particulars of the Judaizer interpretation of this
section, however, Schmithals
virtually ignores it and alleges that
Paul
did not really understand his Gnostic opponents or he would not
have argued in this manner.31 Others who
adhere to this Gnostic
identification find that they too must
assert that their knowledge of
the Galatian opponents
exceeds Paul's because in Galatians 3-4 he
argued about the Law "in such a way as he might
have done if his
opponents had been Pharisaic Judaists, which they
obviously were
not."32 It is possible that a critic's
knowledge can exceed an author's
27 As noted by Bernard H. Brinsmead,
Galatians—Dialogical Response to
Opponents,
Society
of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 65 (
1982),
p. 10.
28
Walter Schmithals, Paul and James, trans. Dorothea M.
Barton, Studies in Bibli-
cal Theology, no. 46 (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1965), pp. 103-17; idem, Paul
and the Gnostics, pp. 13-64; and idem, "Judaisten
in Galatien?" Zeitschrift fur die
Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1983): 27-58.
29 Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics, p. 59, n. 134.
30 Ibid., p. 17.
31 Ibid., p. 18.
32 Willi Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament,
trans. G. Buswell
(Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1968), p. 53. In fairness to Marxsen,
it should be noted
that he changed his view in the fourth edition of Einleitung in das Neue Testament
(Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1978), pp. 56-71 to one similar to Hans Dieter Betz
(to be dis-
cussed shortly).
Who Were Paul's
Opponents in
knowledge of the subject matter, but this is not to be confused with
the critic's thinking that his knowledge of the
author's meaning is
superior.33 Schmithals
and some who have followed him seem to
lapse into this hermeneutical error at times.
Before looking at support for this
view of Paul's opponents, the
closely related identity of syncretistic Jewish
Christians should be
discussed. This view came into particular
prominence through the
writing of Frederic R. Crownfield.34
He identified Paul's Galatian
opponents as a group that combined Christianity
with a mystical
understanding of following Torah and
Jewish legal practices.35 The
"Judaizers" and "spirituals" were actually
the same group. The
leaders of this group are theorized to have been
early converts to
Christianity,
and although not followers of the earthly Jesus, were
nonetheless connected with
they were adherents of Jewish mystery cults seeking
spiritual illu-
mination through legalism. As he
built on Lutgert's thesis to de-
velop his view, Schmithals also built on Crownfield's
work and
specified it to Gnostic groups. Both writers
tended to correlate the
Colossian
errorists with those of
rites with laxity in morals.36 A similar
view is held by Heinrich
Schlier in his commentary on Galatians.37
He embraces an identity
for the opponents that explains their nomism coupled with their lib-
ertinistic tendencies as an early
stage of Gnosticism demonstrating a
sort of Jewish apocalypticism
similar to that found at Qumran.38
This
is not far from the view of Brinsmead, who sees
Paul's oppo-
nents as possessing an Essene theology and ethics that espoused a
"nomistic enthusiasm."39
Brinsmead's elaborate picture of the Gala-
tian intruders has been
devastatingly criticized by several scholars.40
33 See
Edwin D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in
Interpretation (
( versity Press, 1967), pp.
19-23.
34 Frederic R. Crownfield,
"The Singular Problem of the Dual Galatians," Journal of
Biblical Literature 64 (1945): 491-500.
35
Ibid., pp. 492-93.
36 Ibid., p. 493, and Schmithals,
Paul and the Gnostics, pp. 44-46.
37 Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, 5th ed., Kritischexegetischer
Kom -
mentar uber
das Neue Testament 7 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1971).
38 Ibid., pp. 21-24.
39 Brinsmead, Galatians—Dialogical Response to Opponents,
pp. 164-78.
40 E.g., David E. Aune,
"Review of Galatians Dialogical
Response to Opponents,"
Catholic Biblical
Quarterly
46 (1984): 145-47; E. A. Russell, "Convincing or Merely
Curious? A Look at Some Recent Writing on
Galatians," Irish Biblical Studies 6
(1984):
156-76; and Barclay, "Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a
Test
Case,"
pp. 81-83.
336 Bibliotheca
Sacra / July–September 1990
Following this trajectory is Dieter Georgi, who sees the troublers
of the Galatian churches
as pneumatics using Christian elements as
the ultimate completion of a Jewish syncretism
previously enriched
with Gentile motives.41 Against Schmithals, who sees Paul's oppo-
nents as Jews who were never
baptized,42 Georgi views these false
brethren as a faction within the
circumcision of Gentile Christians.
This faction viewed the Law as a
source of speculative wisdom, not simply for the Jews,
but as the norm
for the universe. However, their goal was the
attainment of pneu-
matic completion through
individualistic and ascetic religious expe-
riences.43 Wegenast
holds a view similar to that of Georgi and un-
derscores the importance of
circumcision and the Law to these oppo-
nents.44 This represents a basic
following of the general thesis of
Crownfield in this area against Schmithals,
while still working
within the general Gnostic identity championed by the
latter.
Both the Gnostic and the
syncretistic Jewish Christian identifi-
cations consider that Paul was
primarily addressing the sarkic con-
duct of his opponents and that this libertine
lifestyle, not the legal-
istic theology, was the basic
threat facing the Galatians.45 Follow-
ing Lutgert,
Schmithals focuses on passages like Galatians 4:9 and
5:1
that seem to point to this threat. However, of
particular impor-
tance are these verses.
"And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that
he is under
obligation to keep the whole Law" (5:3).
"For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your
freedom
into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one
another"
(5:13).
"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the
desire of
the
flesh" (5:16).
"For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law them-
selves, but
they desire to have you circumcised, that they may boast in
your
flesh" (6:13).
Following Schmithals's
basic identification Betz asserts that
the fundamental problem facing the churches of
conflict of the Spirit and the flesh. He proposes
that the churches
were wrestling with how being e]n
pneu<mati conflicted with life's
daily realities: "How can the pneumatiko<j coexist with
'trespasses'
41 Dieter
Georgi, Die
Geschichte der Kollekte des
Paulus fur
Forschung, vol. 38 (Hamburg: Evangelischer
Verlag, 1965), p. 35.
42 Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics, p. 14.
43 Georgi, Die Geschichte der
Kollekte des Paulus fur
44 Klaus Wegenast, Der Verstandnis der Tradition bei Paulus und in den
Deuteropaulinen, Wissenschaftliche
Monographien zum Alten and Neuen Testament,
no. 8 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962), p.
39.
45 E.g., Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics, pp. 51-55.
Who Were Paul's
Opponents in
in his daily life?"46
Paul's opponents were answering
this question
with the security that Torah offered. By accepting
Torah and cir-
cumcision, the Galatians would
then become partakers of the safety
offered by the Sinai Covenant.47 One
can see with this reconstruction
and emphasis that Galatians 5-6 becomes the
specific recommenda-
tion that Paul made to the
Galatians. The focal point of Galatians
in Galatians 3-4, associated with the traditional
view of Judaizing
opponents, has shifted to a focal point in
Galatians 5-6 in this third
major view. Methodologically the procedure is to seek
to wrap the
remainder of Galatians around the primary core in
chapters 5-6.
While
Betz essentially subscribes to this third view (though not
emphasizing the opponents' identity in his
exposition), his master-
ful literary analysis of
Galatians locates the body of the epistle in
chapters 3-4.48 This runs contrary to
his belief that chapters 5-6
have real force for the Galatians' problems. The
mere polemic
against accepting circumcision and Law in 2:15-5:12
"does not do jus-
tice to the Galatian trouble." 49 However, the force of
Betz's identi-
fication of the problem in
erary analysis, as Fletcher
has noted.50 A similar
problem is shared
by Schlier. He accepts a
conservative version of the Gnostic iden-
tity, but interprets
Galatians as if Paul were addressing Judaizers.51
Solving the Identity Crisis
The goal in identifying Paul's
opponents in
for all the particulars of the epistle in the most
comprehensive way.
In
seeking to do this, Barclay has delineated three major problems in
this kind of "mirror-reading": (1) Paul
did not directly address his
opponents but talked to the Galatians about the
opponents. (2) Gala-
tians is a fierce polemic and
the intense rhetoric may tend to distort
the opponents' actual positions. (3) Readers
encounter the linguistic
distortion of hearing only one partner in the
conversation.52
46 Hans
Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on
Paul's Letter to the Churches in
47 First set forth in Hans Dieter Betz, "2 Cor. 6:14–7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment?"
Journal of Biblical
Literature
92 (1973): 88-108, and in idem, "Spirit, Freedom, and
Law:
Paul's Message to the Galatian Churches," Svensk exegetisk arsbok 39 (1974):
154-55.
48
Betz, Galatians:
A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in
14-25.
49
Ibid., p. 273.
50 Fletcher, The Singular Argument of Paul's Letter to the Galatians, pp. 82-83.
51 Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, pp. 20-24.
52 Barclay, "Mirror Reading a Polemical
Letter: Galatians as a Test Case," pp. 74-79.
338 Bibliotheca
Sacra / July—September 1990
Barclay goes on to describe four
dangerous pitfalls in recent at-
tempts to mirror-read Galatians. (1) The danger of undue selectivity
(deciding which of Paul's statements are particularly
revealing
about the opponents' message). (2) The danger of overinterpretation
(imagining that every statement of Paul rebuts an equally
vigorous
opponents' counterstatement). (3) The danger of mishandling pol-
emics (making more out of
Paul's attacks than is warranted with
polemical language). (4) The danger of latching onto particular
words and phrases (using these brief bits of data as the flimsy pegs
on which the whole thesis should hang).53
Keeping in mind the seven
methodological criteria that Barclay
suggests,54 this writer will
attempt to weigh the particulars of Gala-
tians and to sift through the
three major views.
In agreement with the first and
third views, it seems that the
problems raised by Paul's opponents are of a
unitary nature. Gordon's
observation is on target when he states:
An examination of the variety of
connecting terms and particles reveals
that
Galatians is, essentially, a single argument. We do not find in this
epistle
indicators of a shift in topic such as we find in First Corinthians.
One does not have to agree with
every dimension of Betz' argument to
recognize
the validity of his claim of unified rhetoric. At least by liter-
ary canons, Galatians is not a series of arguments
about different mat-
ters but a series of sub-arguments about essentially
one matter (which
itself may,
of course, have many ramifications).55
In lieu of in-depth analysis, two
significant structural observa-
tions will suffice at this
point. The first is the bracketing of the
epistle to the Galatians with the prescript
(1:1-5) and the postscript
(6:11-18).
Bullinger noticed the similarity between 1:1-5 and
6:17-18
and labeled it "complex correspondence of
repeated alteration."56
Betz
calls it "the epistolary framework" and notes that "it appears
almost as a kind of external bracket for the body of
the letter."57
Betz
observes the structural ramifications of this bracketing effect
when he comments on the nature of the prescript
(1:1-5): "It is also
interesting that at several points there are
interrelations between
the preface and the body of the letter. It is at
these points that the
theological tendencies and the purpose of the letter
can be ob-
53 Ibid., pp. 79-83.
54 Ibid., pp. 84-86.
55 David T. Gordon, The
Problem at
56
E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible
Explained and Illustrated
(
House,
1968), p. 388.
57
Hans D. Betz, The
Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the
Galatians,"
New Testament Studies 21 (1975): 355.
Who Were Paul's
Opponents in
served."58 He notes that the
postscript (6:11-18) serves a similar
purpose: "It contains the interpretive
clues to the understanding of
Paul's
major concerns in the letter as a whole and should be employed
as the hermeneutical key to the intentions of the
Apostle."59
Given the significance of these
beginning and ending paragraphs
for determining the purpose of Galatians and Paul's
intentions, not-
ing their three common
topics should prove insightful.
First, the issue of Paul's
threatened apostolic authority occurs in
both passages. He used several Greek prepositions in
describing his
apostleship in 1:1: Pau?loj
a]po<stoloj, ou]k a]p ] a]nqrw<twn ou]de> di
]
a]nqrw<pou
a]lla> dia> ]Ihsou? Xristou? kai> qeou?
patro<j. Such a
definitive description of his apostleship is unique
among the saluta-
tions of the traditional
13-epistle Pauline corpus. Paul ended on an
even more picturesque note of his authoritative
identity in 6:17, in
which he flatly stated that he bore in his body the sti<gmata
tou
]Ihsou?. He began and ended
Galatians with unique claims of associa-
tion with both the Person
and ministry of Jesus.
Second, the fatherhood of God is
emphasized in both the pre-
script and postscript of Galatians. Again among the
salutations of
the Pauline corpus this emphasis is unique in that qeou? patro>j
(h[mw?n) is mentioned three
times. In the salutations of 11 of the epis-
tles God's fatherhood is
mentioned only once, and 2 Thessalonians
has two occurrences (1:1-2). But Galatians is
unusual with its three-
fold repetition within the opening verses (1:1,
3-4).
Apparently the underscoring of God's
fatherhood over the Gala-
tian a]delfoi< (v. 2) weighed heavily in Paul's thoughts as he began
this epistle. If the Galatians questioned Paul's
apostolic status, and
therefore his gospel, then they probably
questioned if Paul's gospel
really did bring them into the family of God. It seems
that Paul be-
gan to provide reassurance
of God's paternity from the very beginning
of this epistle. It is from qeou? patro>j h[mw?n kai> kuri<ou ]Ihsou? Xris-
tou? that
"grace and peace" come, in Paul's typical salutation (v. 3).
In
6:16 the conditional blessing of "peace and mercy" is on those who
walk by the rule (t&?
also these who are appositively called to>n ]Israh>l tou? qeou?. They
deserve this term denoting God's chosen people.
He is their Father.
Third, deliverance from the present evil age (ai]w?noj) is associ-
ated with the death of Jesus
Christ and promised to His people in
both the prescript and postscript. In 1:4 Christ's
giving of Himself
was for the purpose (o!pwj as a conjunction with
the subjunctive) of
delivering people from the present aeon. In 6:14-15 Paul associated
58 Betz, Galatians:
A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in
59 Ibid., p. 313.
340 Bibliotheca
Sacra / July—September 1990
deliverance from the ko<smoj
with the cross of Christ and having a
new life (6:12-13). Apparently Paul's opponents
offered an alterna-
tive means of deliverance
from the tug of the aeon or cosmos. That
means was apparently connected to being identified
with
means of circumcision. In contrast the deliverance
Paul preached
identified the Galatians primarily with the death
of Christ that
created a new creation. As both Martyn60
and Brinsmead61 have ob-
served, bracketing the epistle with this apocalyptic
language gives
the epistle an apocalyptic tone. "Thus the
subject of his letter to the
Galatians
is precisely an apocalypse, the apocalypse of Jesus Christ,
and specifically the apocalypse of his cross."62
The point of this sketchy picture of
prescript and postscript par-
allelism is that Paul began and
concluded his letter by expressing
concerns about his threatened apostolic
authority, the fatherhood of
God, and the deliverance from this present age. If
these are reflect-
ing Paul's major concerns
in the letter as a whole, then the body of
the letter between these brackets must give primary
attention to the
development of these three points. This in turn
should reflect the
major questions of the Galatians and should thereby
give some indi-
cation of the identity of the
opponents who raised those questions.
If the first structural clue comes
from the bracketing effect of the
prescript and postscript that underscores the
unity of the problem in
helps establish the identity of Paul's opponents.
This second struc-
tural insight is simply that
Galatians 3-4 must be considered a sig-
nificant part of Paul's
argument. These two chapters cannot be
brushed aside as Schmithals
does when he says Paul did not really
understand his opponents' theology so that "it
is indeed characteris-
tic that this middle section of the Galatian epistle [3:1-5:12], in con-
trast to all other sections,
contains hardly any direct references to
the situation in
Betz realized that this section was
the core of Paul's argument.
Galatians
3-4 was the probatio
that followed the propositio
of 2:15-
21
and preceded the exhortatio
of 5:1-6:10.64 Betz had no other al-
ternative in light of the
structure of the epistle that emerged from
60 J. Louis Martyn,
"Apocalyptic Antinomies in Paul's Letter to the Galatians," New
Testament Studies 31 (1985): 410-24.
61 Brinsmead, Galatians-Dialogical Response to Opponents,
pp. 58-67.
62 Martyn, "Apocalyptic Antinomies in Paul's Letter to
the Galatians," p. 421.
63 Schmithals, Paul and the Gnostics, p. 41.
64 Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to
the Churches in
16-23.
Who Were Paul's
Opponents in
his rhetorical analysis. Therefore he was left to
criticizing the per-
suasive value of rhetoric
itself since "no kind of rational argument
can be adequate with regard to the defense Paul
must make."65
Betz's
solution is to see the epistle as a "magical letter," since Paul
began it with a curse and ended it with a conditional
blessing.66
Since
Paul allegedly "does not leave things to be decided by the rea-
sonableness of the Galatians,"67
then the value of Galatians 3-4 in
his argumentation is greatly diminished in Betz's
analysis. How-
ever, at best, this seems to be a questionable view
of chapters 3-4. Is
it legitimate to appeal to the genre of a magic
letter that is suppos-
edly acting as some
"supra-genre" at the real level of the persuasion
of the Galatians? Indeed, is this legitimate when
Betz himself ad-
mits that "no
satisfactory investigation of the genre [of magical let-
ter] exists"?68
Is this not similar to Schmithals's response that
final
appeal rests with an extratextual
entity to which there is no access?
Would not a simpler and more
credible conclusion be that Gala-
tians 3-4 is important in
Paul's argumentation, since it is the struc-
tural middle of his epistle?
Even more importantly it contains sig-
nificant discussions of two of
the three bracketing themes: the fa-
therhood of God and deliverance
from the present evil age. The fa-
therhood of God permeates
chapters 3-4 as the metaphoric umbrella
of the section that covers the themes of sonship (3:15-29), heirship
(4:1-7), and line of blessing (4:21-31). While the deliverance
theme
receives in-depth treatment in chapters 5-6, it
is also a central part
of Paul's argument in chapters 3-4 as he discussed
possible perfection
by the flesh (sarki>
e]pitelei?sqe, 3:3). However, rather than deliv-
erance, such a flesh-strategy
will lead to the bondage of slavery in
various forms (3:22-23; 4:1-11, 21-31). Without
Galatians 3-4 Paul's
beginning and ending concerns with the themes of
God's fatherhood
and deliverance from the present evil age would be
dealt death
blows. These chapters must be considered as primary
data in the
identification of Paul's opponents. If
that is the case, then Jewett's
assertion (following H. J. Holtzmann's)
is probably correct "that
their
mottoes were spe<rma ]Abraa<m [3:16] and ]Ierousalh<m h!tij
e]stin mh<thr h[mw?n [4:26]."69
Both mottoes represent opposition to
Paul's
viewpoint about the three bracketing themes of apostolic au-
65 Ibid., p. 25.
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69 Robert Jewett, "Agitators and the Galatian Congregation," New Testament Stud-
ies 17 (1971): 200-201.
342 Bibliotheca
Sacra / July-September 1990
thority, God's fatherhood, and
present deliverance. Both mottoes
are discussed by Paul in depth in chapters 3-4.
Some who hold the Gnostic
/syncretistic Jewish Christian iden-
tity of Paul's opponents may
be able to embrace all that has been
proposed in reference to the three bracketing
themes and the central-
ity of Galatians 3-4 in
Paul's argumentation. However, this writer
must part company with those holding the
Gnostic/syncretistic
view. First, the Gnostic identification is
inadequate because it seems
highly unlikely and extremely ill-fitting to assume
the presence of
Gnostics
in Galatia.70 Second, the more generic reason for separating
from those who hold this third view is that this
writer perceives
the theory of the presence of antinomian or libertinistic elements in
Paul's opponents to be fundamentally wrong. Therefore rooting the
identity of Paul's opponents and centering the
primary issue of Gala-
tians around antinomianism
and libertinisrn is fallacious. If this is
true, then both the two-opponent view of Lutgert and Ropes and the
third view that flowed out of it must be rejected.
In view of some widespread recent
acceptance of the third view,
how can it be so readily discarded? The answer is
that the Gnos-
tic/syncretistic Jewish Christian view is built on
several verses that
are all interpreted from the same faulty
perspective. In particular,
fundamental to this third view is the premise that
these opponents
of Paul did not want to keep all the Law, but only
that part of it that
served their purposes—circumcision and sacred days.
Hence Paul
reminded the Galatian
believers of the unity of the Mosaic Law and
the obligation to the whole Law if one places
himself in submission
to any part of it.
"For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for
it
is written,
'Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written
in the book
of the Law, to perform them"' (3:10).
"And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that
he is under
obligation to keep the whole Law" (5:3).
However, this is where the opponents
apparently were caught
in a serious conflict, since they did not want to
keep the Law because
of their basic antinomian and libertine desires.
"For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your
freedom
into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one
another"
(5:13).
70 R. McL. Wilson, "Gnostics—in
Jewett,
"Agitators and the Galatian Congregation,"
pp. 199-200. They both point out
that the meager information about these late
first-century and early second-century
syncretists represents a later
stage of development in Gnosticism and should not be
read back into the mid-first century. Also the later
Gnostic interest in circumcision as
a symbol of transcendence over the bodily sphere
is not comparable to the Judaizers'
emphasis of it as an ethnic identifier essential
for salvation.
Who Were Paul's
Opponents in
"For
those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law them-
selves, but
they desire to have you circumcised, that they may boast in
your
flesh" (6:13).
The evidence seems plain. These opponents mixed nomistic
the-
ology with antinomistic lifestyles. But is this what Paul was really
saying? This writer thinks not. Paul never said his
opponents
lacked a desire for obedience to all the Law. In fact
he said just the
opposite. Paul's opponents apparently held forth
the ideal of a
whole life under the protection of the Law, in that
the Galatians
could be described as wanting to be under Law (4:21).
They were con-
sidering taking up the yoke (zugo<j) of the Law, which Paul
deri-
sively described as a
"yoke of slavery" (5:1). To take up a yoke is a
New Testament phrase for a life of submission. In Matthew 11:28-30
it refers to identification with and submission to
Jesus. In Acts 15:10
Peter
referred to identification with and submission to the Law as "a
yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able
to bear." The
term zugo<j itself is neutral and
was used throughout rabbinical liter-
ature as a symbol of
obedience, not of oppression.71 The yoke of the
Law
was referred to as a gracious blessing compared to other possible
yokes. The following statement about the yoke of the
Torah from
Pirqe Avot 3:5 is attributed to
Rabbi Nehunia ben Haqqaneh, who
supposedly was a disciple of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai
(A.D. 1-80):
Whosoever accepts the yoke of the
Law from him shall be removed the
yoke of the
kingdom and the yoke of mundane care, but he that casts
off from
him the yoke of the Law upon him shall be laid the yoke of the
kingdom and
the yoke of worldly care.72
While the final form of this saying
was probably completed
about A.D. 250,73 scholars have no
difficulty accepting that the basic
thrust of the original saying is at least as old as
the first century
A.D.74
Therefore Paul's reminder that the whole Law is binding was
probably not a negative statement within
first-century Judaism, and
it certainly would not be a surprise to his
opponents. But was it not
71 See R. Travers
ed.
(
Books, 1962), p. 70, and
Second
Series (
72 Translation from Philip Blackman, ed. and trans., Mishnayoth, 7
vols., 2d ed.
(New
York: Judaica Press, 1977), 4:508.
73 Jacob Neusner, ed.
and trans., Scriptures of the Oral Torah
(
&
Row, 1987), p. 71.
74 E.g., Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, p.
7, and M. B. Lerner,
"The
Tractate Avot," in Literature of the Sages, Part One, ed. Shmuel
Safrai, Com-
pendia Rerum
Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, vol. 2.3a (
Press,
1987), pp. 265-66.
344 Bibliotheca
Sacra / July—September 1990
necessary if these opponents did not keep the Law
(6:13)? Yes, it was
necessary to make his point, but for reasons
different from those as-
sumed by the advocates of the
third view.
They assume that reminders about the
whole Law's binding
nature were because of the opponents' desire to
disobey much of the
Law (e.g., 5:3 and 6:13). However, Paul explained
why the oppo-
nents did not obey the Law.
It was not from lack of desire to obey, but
rather from an inherent inability to obey. Their
failure was due to
identifying with a community that was not aided by
God's Spirit
(3:1-5).
Therefore they were unable to meet the demands of the Law.
In
3:19–4:11 Paul attributed this inability to an earlier, preparatory,
more immature period in God's redemptive program in
which en-
slavement to sin and failure were
the norm (3:23; 4:3, 8-11).
The opponents of Paul in
chronistic fashion to this period
by their intense nomistic emphasis.
With
their commitment to Torah-observance came the accompanying
failure of the Law era—its shutting up under sin
(3:22), its keeping in
custody (3:23), its childish, slavelike state (4:1-3), and its enslave-
ment to the elemental things
of the world (4:8-10; cf. 4:3). Those who
preferred this kind of childish failure, evidenced
by receiving cir-
cumcision (5:2), needed to
realize they were subjecting themselves
again to a yoke of slavery (5:1), were putting
themselves under the
obligation of the whole Law (5:3), and were
severing themselves
from Christ, the only One who could set them free
from the Law and
failure (2:15-21; cf.
Therefore the "opportunity for
the flesh" in Galatians 5:13 is
not turning the freedom in Christ into license or
libertinism, but it is
the continued
fleshly failure that characterized the Law era. Paul
explained further in 6:13 that his opponents could
not keep the Law
themselves, but they still wanted the Galatians to
join them in this
fleshly failure for the purpose (i!na) of "boasting in your sarki<." The
Law
era and h[
sa<rc go together as an
inseparable twosome. This
was expressed repeatedly by Paul in Galatians (e.g.
5:13-14; 5:17-18;
5:19-21,
23; 6:12-13). The failure to tie no<moj
and sa<rc together has
needlessly bred this third view of Paul's opponents
and has almost
hopelessly muddied the waters about their identity.
This failure
has also greatly hindered a correct understanding
of the
sa<rc/pneu?ma duality. An accurate,
contextual understanding of the
opponents should go a long way toward unraveling
the second issue.75
75 Several writers accurately see the continuity
in Paul's argument from Galatians 1–
4 to 5–6 in addressing the fleshliness of the Judaizers. These include Howard, Paul:
Crisis
in
nents, pp. 164-92; and D. J.
Lull, The Spirit in Galatia: Paul's
Interpretation of
PNEUMA as Divine Power, Society of Biblical
Literature Dissertation Series 49
Who Were Paul's
Opponents in
The Identity of the Galatian
Opponents
The traditional view seems correct:
Paul's opponents were Jew-
ish Christians who sought
to "Judaize" the Gentile Christians of
Paul's
opponents has not been effectively overturned. The Judaizers'
identity best satisfies the
"mirror-reading" criteria and limitations,
Barclay
concludes that the troublers were probably Jewish
Chris-
tians who also questioned the
adequacy of both Paul's apostolic cre-
dentials and the gospel he
preached.76 They apparently made cir-
cumcision the central issue among
the Gentile Christians of Galatia
because it was the classic symbol for one who
was choosing to live
like a Jew ( ]Ioudaikw?j z^?j and ]Ioudai~zein, Gal. 2:14). "In
fact Paul's
concern about 'works of the law' (3:1-10) and
his extended arguments
to prove the temporary validity of the law (3:6-4:11),
taken to-
gether with remarks like 4:21,
make it highly probable that the op-
ponents wanted the Galatians to
observe the law as circumcised
proselytes."77 Barclay concludes,
"Taking the argument of the letter
as a whole, there is sufficient evidence that the
Galatians were in-
formed of (and responded warmly to) the requirements
of Torah-ob-
servance as the hallmark of the
people of God."78
Such a conclusion and the lack of
viable support for a Gnostic or
libertine identity make assuming the presence of
such opponents in
tally unwarranted and unnecessary. The struggles over
ethics and
law in Galatians 5-6 can be explained more
naturally and holisti-
cally within the context of
Galatians with a unified Judaizers'
threat in the background. As students of Galatians are
tying Gala-
tians 5-6 more closely and
logically to Galatians 3-4, the underscor-
ing of this traditional
identification gets even stronger. Increasingly
it is becoming apparent that rather than stepping
back and defen-
sively clarifying and limiting
the boundaries of Christian freedom
in Galatians 5-6, Paul was actually continuing his
attack on the Ju-
daizers in an overt and
aggressive manner, but (in chaps. 5-6) in the
area of ethics and behavior. This heightened sense
of continuity
(Chico,
CA: Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 113-30.
76 Barclay, "Mirror-Reading a Polemical
Letter: Galatians as a Test Case," pp. 86-
90,
and idem, Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul's Ethics in Galatians, Studies of the
New Testament and Its World, ed. John Riches
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), pp.
36-74.
77 Barclay, "Mirror-Reading a Polemical
Letter: Galatians as a Test Case," p. 86.
78 Ibid.,
p. 87.
79 E. Jewett, "Agitators and the Galatian Congregation," pp. 209-12.
346 Bibliotheca
Sacra / July–September 1990
greatly aids the Judaizer
identity. Such continuity also serves to un-
dercut the predominant
understanding of the sa<rc/pneu?ma internal
duality which arose in part due to a failure in
understanding the
proper linkage of chapters 3-4 with chapters 5-6 in
Paul's argument.
These conclusions do not mean that
all questions about the Ju-
daizers' origin and motivation
have been satisfied. Because of the
emphasis in Galatians 1-2 and 4 on
to suspect some link to the
ish Christians in
and fifties, responded to this threat of
persecution (Gal. 6:12) and
launched a nomistic
campaign among Gentile Christians in areas
that included Galatia.80 As Barclay
points out, the weakness of this
thesis is the slender thread of Galatians 6:12 from
which it hangs.81
Fung more pointedly refutes it, based on the sharply
antithetical re-
lationship between the Zealots and
the church at the outbreak of
the Jewish War and based on the Zealots' lack of
interest in bringing
Gentile
Christians to the "perfection" mentioned in 3:3.82
Perhaps a more viable origin and
motivation is that the Judaiz-
ing threat came from a
Law-observant mission among the Gentiles by
Jewish
Christian "Teachers" (not "opponents"):
In the main it is not they who are
reacting to Paul's theology, but rather
he who is
reacting to theirs. To be sure, the Galatians heard Paul's
gospel
first and only later that of the Teachers. But the finely formed
theology of
the Teachers is best understood on the hypothesis that the
order of
events in
worked in
virgin fields, impelled not by a desire to correct Paul, but by a
passion to
share with the entire world the only gift they believed to have
the power
to liberate humankind from the grip of evil, the Law of God's
Messiah. In
the full sense of the expression, therefore, they represent a
law-observant
mission to Gentiles, a mission inaugurated not many
years after
the death of Jesus.83
While this attractive thesis lessens
the malevolence of the Ju-
daizers' motives, it does not
lessen their theological error. Nor can
the thesis be validated based on first-century
data, because it is
reading from second-century Jewish Christian
documents back into
the first.84 Therefore it must remain in
the category of an attractive
possibility. It does, however, highlight the fact
that, whatever
80 Ibid., pp. 204-8.
81 Barclay, "Mirror-Reading a Polemical
Letter: Galatians as a Test Case," p. 88.
82
Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 6-7.
83 Marten, "A Law-Observant
323.
84
Ibid., pp. 310-12.
Who Were Paul's
Opponents in
the specific motivation of these Jewish Christian
opponents, they
obviously viewed their cause as righteous and
biblical. Their ap-
parent use of the Abraham and Sarah-Hagar narratives
seems to
point to such a perspective, as numerous writers have
observed.85
Given that the Judaizers
considered it imperative that Gentiles
be saved in continuity with
customs of Moses by becoming Jewish proselytes,
the issue of their
geographical origin is worthy of
some focus. There is no overwhelm-
ing consensus about their
origin.
who were proselytizing the Gentile Christians.86
Tyson correctly
identifies the opponents as Jewish Christians, but
follows
lead in arguing that they were native to Galatia.87
Munck's view of
Judaizing Gentile Christians also places the
opponents' origin
within
with the Galatian origin,
as many have observed,89 is that it seems
Paul
referred to the agitators as coming into the churches of
from outside (e.g., 3:1-5; 4:8-16; 5:7-8) and that
he underscored their
"outsider" identity by referring to them in third person
pronouns,
while he referred to the Galatians in the second
person (e.g., 4:17).
Based on the sketchy external and
internal evidence, the best
choice of the origin of these mistaken Jewish
Christians is
or possibly
ence of these strong
Law-observant attitudes in the Jewish Chris-
tians in
tion visit after his third
missionary journey (Acts 21:17-26). The next
day James and the
Christians'
animosity toward him because of his perceived threat to
traditional Jewish Christianity: "You see,
brother, how many thou-
sands there are among the Jews of those who have
believed, and
they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been
told about you,
that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the
Gentiles to for-
sake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their
children nor to walk
85 E.g.,
C. K. Barrett, "The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument
of Galatians," in Essays on Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), pp. 154-70,
and Daniel H. King, "Paul and the Tannaim: A Study in Galatians," Westminster
Theological Journal 45 (1983): 361-69.
86
Foakes Jackson and
reprint,
87 Joseph B. Tyson, "Paul's Opponents in
252-54.
88 Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, pp.
87-100, 130-34.
89 E.g., Martyn, "A Law-Observant
tians," p. 313.
348 Bibliotheca
Sacra / July—September 1990
according to the customs. What, then, is to be
done? They will cer-
tainly hear that you have come
(Acts 21:20-22, italics added).
In light of the chronological work
of Knox,90 Jewett,91 Luede-
mann,92 and Hoehner,93 Paul's final
visit to
tween A.D. 54 and 57. This
visit could have been as much as eight
years after the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15. It
demonstrates the
continuation of a powerful,
Law-observant wing in the
church. Apparently these same Jewish Christians, who were
"zealous for the Law," had caused trouble in
earlier. "And some men came down from
the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according
to the custom of
Moses,
you cannot be saved’” (Acts 15:1).94
After Paul and Barnabas disputed
with these teachers (Acts
15:2),
the Jerusalem Conference was convened to settle the issue. The
discussion continued at the conference. "But
certain ones of the sect of
the Pharisees who had believed, stood up, saying,
'It is necessary to
circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the
Law of Moses’” (v.
5).
After the conference decided against such a notion,
the church
leaders recorded their decision and addressed it
to the Gentiles in
the churches of
tancing themselves from the troublers. "We have heard that some of
our number to whom we gave no instruction have
disturbed you with
their words, unsettling your souls" (v. 24).
While admitting to being
home to these Pharisaic Jewish Christians, the
disavowed any authorization of them or their
teaching. Considering
that this external data sounds much like the
problems in
is reasonable to conclude that the Acts 15 and 21 troublers and the
Galatian troublers
shared a common origin and that "they represent
a wider group of ritually strict Jewish
Christians."95
90 John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul, rev. ed., ed. Douglas R. A. Hare (
91 Robert Jewett, A Chronology of Paul's Life (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979),
foldout page.
92 Gerd Luedemann, Paul,
Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology, trans. E.
93 Harold W. Hoehner,
"A Chronological Table of the Apostolic Age," 2d rev. ed.
(1989),
from "Chronology of the Apostolic Age" (ThD
diss.,
nary„ 1965), pp. 1-4.
94 The Western text of Acts 15:1-5 makes the
Pharisaic identity even stronger with
several extensive additions. See Bruce M.
Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible
Societies, 1971), pp. 426-28.
95 E. Earle Ellis, "'Those of the
Circumcision and the Early Christian Mission," Stu-
dio Evangelica 4 (1968): 391. See also
F. F. Bruce, "The Church of Jerusalem in the
Acts
of the Apostles," Bulletin of the
Who Were Paul's
Opponents in
Internally, the Epistle to the
Galatians strongly supports such a
correlation. Given Paul's recurring emphasis on
in Galatians 1-2 and 4, it is not difficult to
conclude that the Phari-
saic troublemakers from
och,
their home base and at those
they fallaciously appealed for support of their
position (cf. Acts
15:24).
This may also explain why Paul recounted the
confrontation
in
2:11-21).
His point is that the Judaizers' view had already
been re-
jected at one of their prior
stops, the most prominent Gentile church,
twn, 2:14), apostolic in authority (involving both
Peter and Paul),
and apparently
accepted as legitimate (otherwise Paul would not
have appealed to it as authoritative for the Galatian situation).
Another point to be made about these
Jerusalem/Judea-based
opponents involves the motive for their apparent
claims against
Paul.
As King observed in his fine analysis of the situation,96
these
Pharisaic
Judaizers made three main claims against Paul:
1. Paul was on their side but
trimmed the demands of the gospel to
please his hearers (1:10)... .
2. He received his gospel from the
same
supported their mission (1:18–2:9; and 1:11)...
.
3. In Paul's work as a
representative of the "pillars" (1:12, 15-19) he
began a work which they had come to complete
(3:3)....97
As King notes, these Jewish
Christians from the sect of the
Pharisees
expressed a concept of revelation typical of
Judaism.98
According to this view, revelation flowed from the seat of
authority (
tanna, a rabbi, who had
broken the chain of Jewish traditions by not
faithfully or accurately passing on the tradition.
Assuming that
Paul
was a pupil of the
accused him of failing in his duty to transmit
the exact words of Je-
sus' tradition as it had
been mediated to Paul by the apostles. Such.
"iterative incompetence" was viewed as one of the
gravest offenses
according to ancient rabbinical rules (e.g., m.'Ed. 1.3; b. Sabb. 15a;
'Avot 3:8 and 6:6). The Judaizers
had to correct and complete Paul's
breech of the Jesus tradition among the Galatians. It
is to this at-
67
(1985): 641-61.
96 King, "Paul and the Tannaim:
A Study in Galatians," pp. 349-61.
97 Ibid.,
p. 351.
98
Ibid., pp. 352-54.
350 Bibliotheca
Sacra / July—September 1990
tempt to correct and complete his gospel that Paul
responded in
Galatians. In light of these charges against him,
Paul's purpose in
Galatians
1–2 is now quite understandable:
Contra the insinuations of the
agitators, he maintained that his gospel
was not of
human origin; Christ had communicated it to him in person.
He was also careful to assure his
readership the pillars of the church in
ent form. He denied the charge of tanna-oriented
dependency, but
also
maintained consistency with
Paul's reasoning in Galatians 1:11-2:14
also reveals that in the
14
to 17 years following his conversion he spent time in
with some of the
for
the tannaitic process of tedious repetition and
memorization to
occur. This obvious fact coupled with Jesus Christ's
direct teaching of
Paul
(1:11-12) and the
2:7-10)
powerfully refutes the Judaizers' claims against him.
All the
particulars of Galatians 1–2 can most simply and
coherently be ex-
plained in light of this
reconstruction.l00
Conclusion
The identity of Paul's opponents in
interpreting Galatians. While the
last 70 years of scholarly study
about the identity of these opponents have given rise
to a more bal-
anced view of their identity,
it has not effectively overturned the
traditional Judaizer
identification. Bible students can rest secure
that this identification is, in fact, the correct
one.
99 Ibid.,
p. 354.
100
The
epistemological and hermeneutical maxim of "simplicity" is worth
noting at
this point. It is that the "simplest" hypothesis
fitting the facts is the best hypothe-
sis. This goes back to William of Ockham (1285-1349), author of "Ockham's
Razor,"
which is widely paraphrased as "entities are not
to be multiplied beyond necessity"
(W.
F. Bynum, E. J. Browne, and Roy Porter, eds., Dictionary of the History of Science
[Princeton:
complexities of persons and
communities, the principle of simplicity can still be ap-
plied in a nonreductionist
manner. In hypothesizing about the identity of Paul's oppo-
nents in
allows for the human complexities associated with the
clash of cultures and tradi-
tions. There is no need to
multiply other entities or identities.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: