By Acts 15, there appear to have been some Jewish Christians that did not like the implications of Gentile salvation that Paul was preaching. Individuals from this group went into churches established by Paul and taught that circumcision was required for converts to Christianity. Who were these opponents of Paul?
The traditional answer to the identity of the opponents of Paul is that they are Jewish Christians that desire to impose the law on Gentile converts – Judaizers. The term appears in the New Testament only in Gal 2:14 (although a form appears in but is found in a number of secular sources (Plutarch, Cicero 7:6; Josephus JW 2.17.10; Ignatius, Magn 10.3) with the basic meaning of “to live as a Jew in accordance with Jewish customs.”
As early as 1831, F. C. Bauer (from the Tübingen school) suggested that there was a split within early Christianity. Based on 1 Corinthians, he understood that there were two major parties, a Peterine party (which included the “Christ party”) and a Pauline party (which included the Apollos party). Those that followed Peter claimed to be “of Christ” since their leadership had been followers of Christ in his earthly ministry, while Paul and Apollos did not know Jesus directly. The Jerusalem Christians were of the Peter division, a party that was unable to counter Paul’s argument for a gentile mission, but were not particularly pleased with it either. The opponents at Galatia were the radical elements of the Peterine division. The serious problem with this view is that it makes Peter the Judizing element in Galatians, despite his rather conciliatory speech in Acts 15.
A real problem with the view of Bauer is that it makes Paul an independent apostle who is the only one that fully understood the teaching of Jesus and the mission to the Gentiles. While this is quite similar to the view of Paul in some more conservative Dispensationalist circles, it does not reflect the variety of thought in the Jewish element of the church. The situation was not “either Peter or Paul.” Peter seems more moderate than James, Barnabas and Silas are a step further towards Paul.
Bauer also seems to have thought that Paul was in continual conflict with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. This does not seem to be the case, although one might describe the situation as “cool” between the Gentile mission and the Jerusalem church based on Acts 21.
In 1865 J. B. Lightfoot argued against Bauer and the Tübingen school. The Judaizers were not authorized at all by Peter or the Jerusalem church, although the Jerusalem church were slow in stopping them. The Jerusalem Church wanted to find a way to compromise between the radical teaching of Paul and the traditional teaching of the Judaizers. J. F. A. Hort suggested that these Jewish opponents of Paul were lead by James, although mistakenly so. James himself did not authorize the teaching in direct opposition to Paul, but his followers took James’ example of a Law-keeping Jewish Christian to the logical extreme and forced Gentiles to keep the law.
More recently, Robert Jewett argued that the Jewish opponents of Paul in Galatia were from the growing Zealot movement of Palestine [1]. The Zealot movement was a rather radical anti-Rome movement that sought strict obedience to the Law for all Jews. Any Jews that were “Gentile-sympathizers” were the enemy. These teachers sought to supplement Paul’s teaching, according to Jewett, by teaching a form of perfectionism to counter the libertine paganism from which they were converted.
It is perhaps the statement made by Paul in Galatians 6:12-13 that gives us an insight into who the false teachers may have been. They are people that think that by compelling Gentiles to be circumcised they might avoid persecution for the cross of Christ. Likely Jewett’s theory has some merit; some Jewish Christians thought that by making Gentile Christians conform to the basics of the Law they might avoid persecution by the growing radical elements of Judaism.
Galatians 6:12-13 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that try to compel you to be circumcised—only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Even the circumcised do not themselves obey the law, but they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast about your flesh.
Who were the Judaizers, then? Jewish Christians, likely Pharisees according to Acts 15, who, with good intentions, sought to supplement Paul’s gospel by requiring that the basics of the Law be followed: circumcision and food laws. Perhaps the real issue at stake here is the status of the Gentiles within the people of God. Could an uncircumcised Gentile be part of God’s people along with Israel? Could a person be faithful to God and not keep the key elements of the covenant?
Paul reversed this argument in Galatians: can a Gentile be a member of the people of God and allow himself to be circumcised? Can a Gentile be “free in Christ” and keep the Jewish laws concerning food, festivals, etc.? The answer in Galatians is a resounding no.
A potential problem here is the value of Galatians for contemporary Christians. If the Judaizers were solely interested in converting Gentiles fully to Judaism, then what is the contemporary application of the book? How do we get from Judaizers to “Church Legalists,” as most contemporary preachers do with this passage?
[1] Robert Jewett, “The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation.” NTS 17 (1971) 198–212. See also Howard, G. Paul: Crisis in Galatia, 1–19.
[NB: This is a re-post of something I wrote in 2009 as part of a survey of the book of Acts. Since Acts 15 and Galatians 2 both concern the Judaizers, I have re-posted my earlier essay with little change other than the final paragraph.]
26 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 24, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Micah Widdis
I think what is very important to remember when reading about the Judaizers (or comparing them with “Church Legalists”), is what Paul speaks about throughout all his writing — that we have been made free through Christ’s death (Gal 4:31, 5:1-13). The Judaizers were tied down to the thought that they were not complete in salvation unless they adhered to the Mosaic Law — Paul taught that once they had confessed that Jesus is Lord, and believed in his death, burial, and resurrection, that they were saved, and no longer needed to adhere to those laws. “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal 5:1).
Polhill said that Paul was urging the Galatians to be rid of the “Judaizers with their enslaving message” (Polhill 151). Christians today still struggle with the fact that they are free. Church Legalists today may not be enforcing compliance with the Mosaic Law — but rather they are implementing there own version of “law” in their lives. For Church Legalists, Christianity has become something very different from a personal relationship with God, it is rather a ritual thing, finding rules and regulations in every aspect of life — and if these rules and rituals aren’t followed, then in their view, they are not Christians. This type of legalism in the church reaches right back into what Paul was saying about the Judaizers — they base their salvation in ritualism, asceticism, and strict laws. Paul urges the Galatians to remember that they are new men (Gal 6:15), no longer subject to the “law”, but free in Christ (Romans 5:15).
September 25, 2011 at 7:30 am
David
I think the application that can be taken from this passage is in regards to the concept of adding to salvation. If the Judaizers were simply trying to convert the Gentiles back to Judaism, then they were missing the entire point of Paul’s teaching. In Galatians 5:1 Paul reminds the Galatians that Christ has set them free, for the sake of freedom and to stand firm and not be burdened with slavery. The purpose of Christ’s life was to fulfill the law and bring righteousness to all who believed (Romans 10:4). Yes, following Christ involves obedience, heart change, and Godly living, but not out of obligation, fear, or keeping additional laws and standards.
I think we have to be careful in how closely we align Judaizers with legalists though. The law that the Judaizers lived under is different than the law that legalists encourage today. It is the motives of the heart that are the binding aspect in my mind. Like many Christians today, the Galatians were looking for guidance in “Christian living” after their new faith. They “may have been turning to the legalism of the Judaizers out of a felt need for a guide in their daily living.” (Polhill 151) The law that Judaizers lived by is quite different than the legalism that some Christians live by, but it’s the intentions of the heart that make them similar. We like having an order or checklist to live our lives by, and that is what both of these offer. “What do I have to do each day to show that I’m a Christian?” seems to be the underlying question. Yes, it’s a good question to be asking, but the obvious problem with it is the intent and place that the Galatians and current Christians are looking. We are given freedom to respond to Christ out of our love, not out of our obligation. That’s where the real issue lies.
September 25, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Phillip J. Long
David – you say the Judaizer / legalist is “adding to salvation.” I agree, but is the modern legalist really saying you have to behave a certain way to be saved, or are they saying that if you were really saved, you would stop a particular behavior or adopt a certain lifestyle? If so, where do you draw the line?
For example, if someone told me I had to use a certain Bible translation to be a “real Christian” then I will call them a legalist and probably flaunt my TNIV in their general direction. Or maybe someone says that a “good Christian” does not drink any alcohol, or get tattoos, or pierce odd flaps of skin on their body, etc. That all sounds like legalism to me.
But if an unmarried couple is sleeping together in my church, I might very well recommend they either stop their behavior or move on to another church. Why is one a legalism and the other not? AM I adding to salvation by calling out someone because of sin?
September 25, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Nathan Beecher
The main problem here is that it seems like the Judaizers are trying to add the requirement of works onto the free gift of salvation that Eph. 2:8-9 tells us we have. In Gal. 1:6 Paul is surprised that the gentiles are turning from the gospel of grace in Christ in favor of one that requires works to be saved. In Galatians 2 Paul shows his authority in preaching to those who are uncircumcised (gentiles) and says that nobody has the right to add onto his message.
It is very interesting to me that Galatians is used to preach against legalism. I can see how such a leap can be made, however, it seems a stretch. Even most legalistic churches will admit that works are not necessary to salvation unlike what these Judaizers were claiming. “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:21). And Paul is not at all preaching that good works are not something to be sought after. In Romans 6:1-2 he says “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?”
September 25, 2011 at 7:38 pm
cwitt89
I believe that the application of the book of Galatians for the church today lies with the overall theme of true freedom in Christ. In the letter Paul addresses some specific issues that the Judaizers were forcing onto the Galatian church. Most of these issues are found to be moot in today’s society. However, there are those who have trouble with the concept of tre freedom in Christ, i.e. the legalists. Today’s legalists along with the Judaizers both seem to have one thing in common, they live by “an ethic of the flesh doomed to failure,” (Polhil 151). They are performing their Christian duties out of their own strength and out of a desire for step by step process of Christian living. The verses that we today need to bear in mind when reading this epistle are Galatians 2:20-21, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; an the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain,” and Galatian 5:1, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not e entangled again with a yoke of bondage.” These are key expressions of Paul’s personal freedom in the redemption of Christ, a freedom which he urges every believer to cling to.
September 25, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Chris Thompson
Judaizers and church legalists today both have one thing in common, they are not willing to change. In different ways they are not willing to change though. The Judaizers staying in line with the law which Paul talks about in Galatians 5:2 and Galatians 6:12. The church legalistic view of today is more along the lines of this is how my generation did it so the people who want to change are automatically wrong, not as much to do with the law like the Judaizers. But what I really want to focus on is one thing that they have in common. They both ran people away from the faith.
Time and time again there are people that enter a church and are greeted by someone who is rude, harsh and not wanting anything to do with new people entering the church. Or they are asked about their dress and told that it is not good enough to be here in this day and age. Legalism kills the passion of the church and everything that goes along with it. I am sure in Paul’s time it was the same way with them making Gentiles keep the law. Polhill on page 139 talks about this when he says “They were stupid; they were abandoning the Spirit for the flesh (3:1-5). They were alienating themselves from Christ, falling away from the the way of grace into the law (5:2-4)”. The people that Paul had reached were taught about this grace of God, the same as Christians today, and the minute they entered into the synagogue, or the church, they were immediately told about keeping the law, or the way they dress or worship style and so on. They became confused and ultimately left the faith.
September 25, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Scott Miller
I believe that the Judaizers of the Galatian church were enforcing legalistic acts, such as circumcision, out of a righteous attempt to fulfill the law in which their ancestors had followed for generations. Although they had heard the new salvation message of grace by faith, their tradition had taught them otherwise. Even today many cultures have difficulties giving up cultural traditions when coming to salvation in Christ. The change seems contrary to their way of life, and in some cases, even seems wrong.
Not to say, however, that the forcing of circumcision on Gentile converts was due solely to a righteous pursuit of their law. Some may have been rebelling to the message brought by Paul and, in turn, acting in a way which would appear to disqualify the Gentiles that they circumcised (Polhill 151). These Judaizers may have also been jealous of the fact that God was opening a new door in his salvation plan and now the only thing that counted was “faith expressing itself through love (Gal 5:6)”.
September 25, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Jason Magnuson
I’m going to go into the opposite direction here and call the Judaizers good intentioned conservatives. I honestly cannot see the Judaizers going out into the Gentile churches to destroy their faith. First of all, if these Judaizers were so concerned about adherence to the Jewish Torah, they wouldn’t be in contact with the Gentiles to begin with due to purity laws. Secondly, why limit the adherence to just a small handful of things? As Paul says, “Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.” in Galatians 5:3. It makes more sense to me that the Judaizers were in a state of limbo in regards to the Law. They grew up on Torah and lived according to Torah, It would be a hard thing to allow Grace to supersede Torah at this stage of Christian history. These Judaizers saw “The Way” as a sect of Judaism and were most likely reacting in the way they saw fit, even though Paul was making it clear that Grace and Law do not necessarily go hand in hand from a Torah standpoint. Now, it is unfortunate that there was a rift because of this but as Polhill says, “there was considerable conflict within the Galatian fellowship. One wonders how much the Judaizing controversy contributed to this” (Polhill 152). One could ask if the Judaizers were made a scapegoat for the stress and angst that Paul felt… remember, Paul was a human being like you and I too, not some SuperPaul… defender of Christopolis!
September 25, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Phillip J. Long
“These Judaizers saw “The Way” as a sect of Judaism and were most likely reacting in the way they saw fit.” This is *exactly* the point of Galatians and why Paul is bent out of shape – are Gentiles converting to a form of Judaism? that is the point of Acts 15 and any other agreement between Paul and James prior to that. Whatever Paul’s gentile converts are, they are not converting to Judaism – so Paul says that they should not keep the boundary markers like Circumcision.
September 25, 2011 at 9:14 pm
connmi08
Ok…first of all, can I just say I was kind of disappointed in this post? I go to a P Long blog, see the picture above, and of course my immediate thought is that I’m going to get to read a whole Blog post on Subterranean Homesick Blues. Not even close.
Judaizers, who were they? We see the Judaizers in Galatia arguing over the same issues that Paul had resolved already in his meeting with the Jerusalem Counsel. Specifically they argued about whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised to be saved, but at the heart the issue was much deeper than that. (Polhill, 145) What was really being questioned was the necessity of keeping to Law concerning an individual’s salvation. We see Paul over and over again argue against this kind of teaching. Although Paul continues to follow the Law to the best of his ability, he truly understands that it is only by Grace through Christ that we can be saved. This is something that seems to be hard for a lot of new Jewish Christians to grasp.
I believe that the Judaizers at Galatia, depending on how many there were (we don’t know since Paul never specifies) could have been a group of individuals all motivated out of a multitude of reasons. Some of them may have simply been ignorant to the resolution at the Jerusalem Council. This however seems pretty unlikely. The top two reasons I believe there were Galatian Judaizers was out of fear and tradition. To avoid persecution from other Jews, some may have chosen the path of a Judaizer. While enforcing the Law, other Jews may have seen no harm in Christianity, and left them alone. Also, there were probably many Judaizers who simply couldn’t let their grip on the Law go. They grew up with the Law being above all else. Unfortunately many couldn’t let the necessity of the Law go. (Polhill, 140)
I can see a correlation between the Judaizers and Christian Legalists today. Throughout many years not only was the Law the Law, but the Pharisees built up their rules that surrounded the Law. The Pharisees were obsessed with living their lives according to the Law and to Rules. Many Christians today get so obsessed with the “rules” of Christianity, sin, and judging that they forget that we are saved by Grace alone.
September 25, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Phillip J. Long
Twenty years of schooling and the put you on the day shift….look out kid.
“the “rules” of Christianity, sin, and judging that they forget that we are saved by Grace alone.” Can you make a distinction between dealing with real sin and legalists? Paul is going to demand a sinful person in Corinth be kicked out (actually, handed over to Satan) and Paul has nothing good to say about people who “do the deeds of the flesh.” Lots of people have already cited Rom 6, but that has to be a factor here – sinlessness is the goal, but graces means we are in the process of becoming like Christ, allowing for failure in others and ourselves.
September 25, 2011 at 9:21 pm
jbefus
I think that preachers get from ‘Judaizers’ to ‘church legalists’ because those both involve adding an element to the gospel, therefore corrupting the gift of grace. In Galatians, the Judaizers were adding circumcision and submitting to other things of the law in order to be truly saved. However, that is against the very definition of grace in the first place. Galatians 2:16 says, “..So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.” Here, we see that man cannot be saved by observing the law, because the law only enslaves us. Here is where preachers make a connection to church legalists. Church legalists add things to the gospel and say that certain things must be done in order to be Godly people. Polhill says, “to fall into the law-way was to fall out of the grace-way” (151). This principle is what preachers use to apply church legalism to Galatians 2. Although Galatians 2 talks about circumcision, food, and observing dates the principle can relate.
September 25, 2011 at 9:29 pm
CRudd
Beecher stated pretty well my thoughts on this topic. I feel like I often hear people, especially in youth-groups, preach on this Galatians passage like it is about legalism. In a way, I suppose it is about legalism, but the legalism in Galatians is an entirely different sort of legalism than the sort I feel like people often pit this passage against these days.
As PLong said, these Judaizers were piling circumcision and food laws onto the gentile Christians as requirements for salvation. Yes there is an element of “this is the way things have always been, and this is the way they should stay,” but that is not the primary mover here. They are not simply trying to keep things the way they have always been within their same context, they are trying to keep things the same in a new context. That is why it doesn’t work. If they were trying to keep things the same within Judaism, it would be fine. But they were trying to apply Jewish law in a Christian context.
Any attempted connection between this and the modern legalism I generally hear preached against seems tenuous at best. As I understand it, new Christians are not greeted in their new church with someone laying into them for every little thing that they do wrong or saying/implying that they need to do x, y, and z to be accepted as a Christian. Rather, they are met, in some cases, with people who are not culturally active enough to be less than shocked by the physical appearance of these new people. And that lack of comfort is about as far as it usually goes. As far as I know, we don’t have adults constantly telling students in our youth groups that their clothes are not Christian enough (possible exception for modesty).
All that to say, I just feel that the Galatians and the Judaizers were asking rather different sorts of things, for reasons that were significantly different from the things and reasons that have become labeled “legalistic” today. Certainly there are factions of the Church today that deserve the term and the comparison to the Judaizers, but the label is applied far more liberally than is really legitimate… in my opinion…
September 25, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Ryan Vegh
Interesting… I had always thought the people who were telling the Galatians to be circumcised were people with bad intentions – Judaizers, like you said. To say they had good intentions totally warps my mindset. Now they’re not just evil people trying to disrupt the congregation. Polhill brings up a good point: “One must bear in mind that in Paul’s day people often vilified their opponents, painting them in the starkest hues possible” (pg. 140). If they seem to us to be bad people, it could be due to this painted way of describing them.
Now, to apply Galatians to a modern-day context and get from Judaizers to church legalists may not directly work, but it somewhat does. After all, it’s about our freedom in Christ. Jumping off of what P. Long said about where do you draw the line in determining legalism, I would say it depends on what you consider to be sin. In my thinking, legalism turns the gray areas of the Bible into strict yeses and nos. If the Bible doesn’t definitively say, “This is a sin; don’t do this,” then it’s a gray area. Now, some people do find Scripture to back up their legalism. An example would be people using 1 Corinthians 11:14 to say that men can’t have long hair: “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him.” Depending on who you are, this Scripture may suffice you to think this is a black and white truth (as I thought for a while it was), but when you come to consider this is the only passage in the Bible about the topic and that it can be explained by cultural issues, the issue becomes a gray issue.
September 26, 2011 at 11:46 am
Phillip J. Long
“gray areas of the Bible” is a phrase I have never been comfortable with. Something is either good and God-honoring, or it is bad and ought to be avoided. I am not sure God ever says “here is a moral issue you can make your own decision on.” I think that you might have in mind matters of taste, things which are called “matters of indifference” in the Bible.
September 25, 2011 at 10:06 pm
1laurenasmussen
Why do so many preachers relate Judaizers and “Church Legalists”? I like how Chris T. states it very simply: both are resistant to change, though in different ways. Yes, both parties dig in their heels when confronted with anything but the established way of doing things regarding their faith, and both parties are criticized for it by the newer generation pushing for the change. However, I think that both the ancient Judaizers and the modern Legalists have the same motivating factor: fear.
It is a basic human instinct to fear the unfamiliar. For the Judaizers, Christianity was completely new altogether, so it is understandable that they would resist the old ways of Gentile-conversion. Before, a Gentile would need to be circumcised as well as keep the Law of Moses in order to become a proselyte Jew. For today’s Legalists, I think the fear is more that the newer generations of the church are more liberal than they were in their day, with all our loud music and post-modernist ideas. It’s pretty hard to stand up to these kinds of people. They do not like being told their ways are wrong. Peter himself feared the circumcision party. (Gal. 2:12)
In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul stands up to the Judaizers, and confronts their fear. My favorite is verse 14: “But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”” Polhill says much the same thing: “Jews were not to become Gentiles when they became Christians, and Gentiles were not to become Jews. … [Timothy, who was a Jew,] belonged to ‘the circumcision.’ So, Paul had him circumcised (136).” This is a very simple, straightforward solution to their debate over whether or not to make Gentile Christians become circumcised. I like things simple.
September 25, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Kimmy Haney
Ryan, why would you think that people telling the Galatians to follow the law is bad? I am interested on how you came to that conclusion; I mean I have never heard that before so I am a little surprised to hear you say that (maybe I have heard it before but I have never thought that myself).
I think Grace is a gift that many people take advantage of, including Paul. I know this is not the topic of the post but it is something I am passionate about. “…it is through grace you have been saved…(Eph.2:8)” to me, yes that is a very important verse for us Christians, and I am sure Paul used it and said it while reaching others. But Grace I think is such a more powerful word than people think, many times during the day I hear many Christians say “oh I was showing that person grace by not telling them what I thought” or “I show grace by forgiving them of the wrong they have done to me” and yes, that is important and that is a part of Grace that God wants us Christians to have for each other… but I believe that when you have Grace, you also have obedience, faith, and compassion as well almost as “side dishes”. I am peeved often by people who abuse the word “grace” regularly… because grace is not just a little thing we throw out at people when they wrong us, GOD had Grace, and he sent his son to forgive us and die for us. God’s grace and our grace are two completely different things, and I think people misunderstand it. (sorry about my rant)
Back to the subject, I think David had some great points above, by using Romans 10:4, you can also use Galatians 3:24, stating that the law was put over us to lead us to Christ. And David’s points about Judaizer/Legalist are very much how I think, and he stated them very well.
September 25, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Joe Pedersen
The Judaizers were like a bunch of old timers at a youth group meeting. They didn’t like what was happening and they don’t like “new” ways of doing things. Just like how the old people at my church from my high school days would be upset about how we would use the church building, the Judaizers didn’t like these newbies (Gentile Christians). I can kind of see why the Judaizers didn’t care for the “new way” of doing religion. It was something they didn’t fully understand and it was a change. And lets be honest, who really likes change? Especially when it comes to what we believe in. I can bet that if a bunch of new radicals started to tell me that what I believe in needed to change I would probably have problems with that. I’m not trying to justify the Judaizers, but I can understand where they are coming from.
September 26, 2011 at 11:39 am
Phillip J. Long
I guess that is a way of contextualizing the problem, but the Judaizers are saying that Paul is not authorized to make theological changes, and his changes are going to keep people from accepting Jesus as savior. That is a bit more than old people upset you played “Zombies” at youth group last week.
September 25, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Andrew Clark
The unwillingness to change and adapt, that is what the Judaizers were. I believe the understood what Paul was trying to convey but they had been doing what they were doing and believing the things they believed for so long that the idea of change scared them.Like Joe says, no one really likes change so it makes a lot of sense to me.
Paul says, “So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith (Gal. 3:24).” The legalists believed this to be the truth and I don’t think they realized that Christ had came and offered them faith. And if they did, they probably just wanted to keep some of their laws intact because it made them comfortable.
September 25, 2011 at 10:59 pm
mrjohnwillard3
As far as a contemporary application of the book, I believe that Paul, because of his unique mission, shows clear application. In Galatians 2:16, Paul says, “yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” Contemporary application shows through when he uses phrases like, “no one will be justified,” phrases that do not refer to a particular group of people.
Paul may have been defending himself from the criticism from the Jews, but that does not take away from what he has to say in the rest of the letter. It is full of useful information for believer and unbelievers.
September 25, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Ty Cook
Uncircumcised Gentiles could become part of God’s people along with Israel. With the “freedom of Christ” there was no longer any difference between the Jew and the Gentile. It was faith in Christ that defined the people of God. Gentiles could become just as much God’s people as the Jews without having to conform to their laws. To the question of whether Gentiles could be faithful to God without following key parts of the Torah I would say yes. Being faithful to God only required faith. Keeping key feasts, laws and other things was not completely necessary to being faithful to God. Judaizers wanted to make the Gentile Christians conform to the Torah. This would be subjecting them to a law they have already been freed from, Galatians 5:1, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery”. The Judaizers were trying to enslave the Gentiles to the law by convincing them they could not be part of God’s people without it and they could not be faithful to God without it.
September 26, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Sunny Varghese
Recently a muslim group argues on the basis of this alleaged issue between Paul and Peter (Jerusalem -Antioch conflict as they may call it), that these two apostles preached different gospels and what preached by Peter was exactly the way of Jesus and Paul was creating a new religion. Also they argue that today’s Christianity is Paul’s religion and not Christ’s way. One of the main point they bring forward is Paul had osbserved the Law in Acts 18 and 21, when he shaved his head because of a vow and paying the expences for levite sacrifices for those who had some vow. Also Paul had circumcised Timoty (Acts 16:3).
So can u make it clear for me, What Paul meant when he said, “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” (Gal 3:10).
And why he obseved Law, that seems to be contradictory to his writtings?
September 27, 2011 at 6:44 am
Phillip J. Long
Very good question, and I was unaware of any use of this text within Islam. Do you happen to have a bibliographic reference (journal article, book) or perhaps a website that mentions this?
As for Paul’s use of the Law, a few quick responses, and then I will say “stay tuned to this blog” since that is what I am planning to work on this week a bit more. I think first that this Muslim suggestion is “old news” in that they are saying much the same thing as 19th century protestant liberalism, or 21st century emergent church-type thinkers, although with a different agenda. Many people have suggested that what Paul did was to “get Jesus wrong” and create something different than what Jesus intended. There are certainly differences, but you have to understand that Jesus’ stated intention was to die on the cross as a ransom for sin (Mark 10:45, etc), his goal was to be the Passover Lamb that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). He was not founding a church or a religion, and I am of the opinion that the activity of the apostles in Acts 2-4 was not aimed at establishing a church which would survive two millennia, but to prepare Israel to meet their God and Messiah when Jesus returned to judge, very soon from their perspective.
Paul’s mission was to the Gentiles, and I think that he had that same eschatological belief Jesus was returning very soon, so he was motivated to extend the Gospel to the Gentile world.
Second, as for Paul and the Law, I think that it is important to realize that Paul never says the Law was null and void for Jews, only that Gentiles are not “under the Law” because they are not converting to Judaism!. Timothy is circumcised, for example, because he was a Jew, Galatians says Titus was not circumcised because he was a Gentile. His own observance of elements of Judaism (Passover, vows, worship in the temple, etc). was due to the fact that he was still a Jew and these were the normal ways a Jew might worship God. He did not impose these on Gentiles, nor did he recommend to Jews the drop the Law,.
Third, the curse of the Law is drawn form the Law itself, Deut 27-30, the “blessings and cursings” of the Law. If one does not keep the Law, one is under the curse of the Law. Paul is developing a larger theology of Law here, and I defer you to future blogs for more details. Essentially, Jesus becomes the curse of the Law in order to fulfill it, opening the door to salvation part from the Law.
I hope this helps, please continue the dialog if you like.
March 22, 2012 at 11:35 am
michael
i hear people saying paul was wrong and that was his opinion. he says if anyone preaches anything different let him be eternaly condemned. where i live there are real judiazers in the churches all they talk about is the old testement dietary laws and feast. if someone gets born again they say dont read the new testement read the old. after a while the person is a convert of judaism. it is so deceptive it is scary they told me i had to keep the sabbath on saturday and keep every law in the old testement. god rescued me from them but i have lost the feeling that i am accepted by god by faith . i always think im not perfect enough. in all honesty these judaizers need to be fiercely resistdd there teaching will eat like gangrene. the way these people twist scripture and minimize jesus christ is an abomination.
October 14, 2012 at 11:58 pm
tiva82
The Apostle Peter opposed the
Judaizers by reporting on how God
poured out His Holy Spirit on the
gentiles: “So God, who knows the
heart, acknowledged them by
giving them the Holy Spirit, just
as He did to us, and made no
distinction between us and
them, purifying their hearts by
faith. Now, therefore, why do
you test God by putting a yolk
on the neck of the disciples
which neither our fathers nor
we were able to bear?” Acts
15:8-10
The Apostle Paul and Barnabas
testified to the miraculous works of
God among the Gentiles. James
pointed out how this was the
fulfillment of many prophecies and
he declared: “Therefore I judge
that we should not trouble those
from among the Gentiles who
are turning to God, but that we
write to them to abstain from
things polluted by idols, from
sexual immorality and from
things strangled and from
blood.” Acts 15:19-20
The conclusion of the Jerusalem
Conference is recorded in Acts
15:22-29. In it the Apostles, elders
and brethren of the Church in
Jerusalem dissociated themselves
from the Judaizers who were
“unsettling your souls” by
requiring observance to Jewish
ceremonial law “to whom we
gave no such commandment.”
The council decreed: “For it
seemed good to the Holy Spirit,
and to us, to lay upon you no
greater burden than these
necessary things:” to abstain
from idolatry, immorality and
blood. There is no mention here of
the Jewish Sabbath or any of the
many distinctives being insisted by
modern Judaizers.