Back in September of 2009 I posted a comment entitled “Who were the Judaizers?” For some reason this post has become the most viewed page on Reading Acts since it launched in September of 2008. Various forms of the question turn up as search items more than any other topic (even beating out N. T. Wright and Rob Bell, which surprises me!) I do not think that was a particularly good blog, but perhaps it is an indication that people struggle with the traditional view of who the people mentioned in Acts 15:1-2 were.
In that post, I reviewed the traditional view that the Pharisees mentioned in Acts 15 were Jewish Christians who were insisting that Gentiles were converting to Judaism, and therefore needed to keep the Law beginning with Circumcision. I briefly reviewed the view of F. C. Bauer who thought there was a “split” within the early church between the Paul’s Gentile mission and Peter’s Jewish mission. I then dealt briefly with J. B. Lightfoot and J. F. A. Hort , who offered a critique of Bauer and suggested that James was the leader of the more Jewish side of the church, while Paul was the leader of the more or less Gentile wing of the church.
Walt Russell surveyed the various views of the opponents in Galatia and concluded: “While the last 70 years of scholarly study about the identity of these opponents have given rise to a more balanced view of their identity, it has not effectively overturned the traditional Judaizer identification” (Russell, 350).
I still stand by my conclusion from 2009: “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?”
This is another opportunity to think about the theological implications of Acts. Paul argues passionately in Galatians that a Gentile believer is not converting to Judaism and that he is not required to submit to circumcision or the Law. Paul is not advocating freedom from all rules and moral commands, but a freedom for Gentiles from the requirements associated with being a Jew. Paul is does not conceive of his mission as reforming Judaism, nor does he see his churches as converting to the practice of Judaism. Paul argues in Galatians (and I assume Acts 15) that God is doing something new with the Gentiles.
Why then were Gentiles interested in keeping the Law? To those of us who are not Jewish, the Law seems like a burden. But to the Gentile convert, the Law gave form and structure to a new religious experience. Christianity has no Temple, no Sacrifice, no Ritual. That is extremely strange in the world of the first century. Perhaps the attraction to the Law was the result of the human need for “religion,” while Paul preaches freedom in Christ.
I am not sure we are that much different 2000 years later.
Bibliography: Walter B. Russell III, “Who Were Paul’s Opponents in Galatia?” BibSac 147 (1990), 328.
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 27, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Howard Pepper
Interesting observation re. interest in this subject. I haven’t taken time to read the original post but I’d offer a couple points that I rarely see taken enough count of, particularly by conservative scholars.
Paul, in Galatians seems to identify those with a similar or the same position (maybe some of the same people?) very closely with James (“… certain people came from James…” 2:12). Not only there, but elsewhere he also takes issue with Peter/Cephas and his followers, and with “mutilators” of the flesh, etc. When you combine this with the very evident purpose of Luke in writing Acts, as to reconciling, creating the appearance of unity in the branches of the early Church, you get the picture of two competing and quite different conceptions of what the new faith was to be… one that was NOT apparently worked through with nearly the relative ease Luke presents and not until much later than 60 or so when he trails off his narrative. The war and destruction of Jerusalem, however, totally disrupted the core of the “Judaizers” from Jeru./Judea and certainly gave the impetus to the Pauline churches from Antioch to points much further away.
And they were not just “Gentile” churches, as the texts indicate he preached to and converted many who were “God-fearers” or basically Jewish followers who were not required to be circumcised even prior to Jesus, nor follow dietary restrictions. Romans, particularly, as Galatians and others presuppose a fair knowledge of Jewish Scripture and history among his readers.
In sum: the “Judiazers” seem to be authorized representatives of the Jerusalem “pillars” and other apostles, if not sometimes the apostles themselves.
This is not to deny that there were several variations of views and corresponding sects that sprang up quickly after Jesus’ death. There is good reason to think that there were. But Paul’s issues seemed to generally be with the “big guns” with whom he both agreed or sympathized in part, but competed with and opposed, as far as he could “get away” with, on KEY issues also.
February 27, 2013 at 1:05 pm
cbefus
These Pharisees wanted or believed that the Gentiles should be circumcised and follow the law because it was what had been predicated to happen when the Messiah would come. The Messiah was going to set up the kingdom and then all nations would come to Israel to worship the Lord. The nation of Israel was supposed to be the light to the world but failed time and time again to the point of killing the Messiah. These Pharisees however still believe that for Gentiles to be saved they still have to come through Israel. They are confused as to what the new message of Grace means for the Gentiles.
I would have to agree with P.Long as to why some Gentiles wanted to follow the Law, because “…the Law gave form and structure to a new religious experience.” Every human has some piece of them that wants structure and direction. I know that I hate it when a teacher gives an assignment with a free topic and says he will grade it on effort. You have no idea what is expected and so you end up comparing your work to others. Only in this case there was nothing to compare it to, every other religion had rules, rituals, and some kind of structure. So these gentiles would have looked for what they are to do or follow and ended up following the law. I believe we haven’t changed much because in every church we have a ladder of people in charge, and there are many rules put in place.
February 27, 2013 at 4:57 pm
jbefus
Freedom is something we cling to so tightly, but also something we are deeply afraid of because it means that we have to decide what to do. Like Cam says in his post, the Gentiles may have been a little unnerved by the freedom that Paul was preaching; they wanted something they could do in order to feel ‘religious’. But Peter rejects this notion in verse 11: “No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” The message of grace is a message of freedom that would have been so contrary to anything Jews in the first century would have known. They were used to the Law. They were used to having a set of rules to follow. So the message of grace would have certainly taken a little time for them to change mindsets.
‘Judaizers’ were trying to force a culture and the Law on to Gentiles in order to give them that structure or religion that would make them look like what they would have perceived as ‘real believers’. I wonder if part of the reason they wanted to do this is because they were worried about how outsiders perceived them. Like we have been saying all along in Acts class is that the Jew and Gentile divide was huge. Perhaps the ‘Judaizers’ were worried about how they would be perceived if they accepted the ‘unclean’ Gentiles.
February 27, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Sir Lundy
The idea of keeping the Law as a gentile is an interesting topic of discussion. P. Long, you brought up the idea of how modern day Christians see the law as a burden but gentiles of the day would have seen the law very much differently. (Post). I think this observation has quite a bit of merit but let me expand on that observation. I think the idea of keeping the law in the eyes of the gentiles was that of ‘fitting’ in. The gentiles didn’t necessarily at this point in history want to be set apart, they just wanted to be a part of the growing movement. You see this a lot today, it may not be with keeping the law but look at why you have so many denominations…you have people flock to one denomination or another much because they want to ‘fit in’ with those who think the way they do. They may even adopt some actions that they wouldn’t have normally done. The gentiles in my opinion are in the same boat. Paul and Barnabas however, dislike the ideal that men are preaches that you have to keep the law in order to be saved. (Acts 15:1). This teaching completely contradicts Paul’s teaching, but more importantly what God has commanded. Gentiles would have seen this discontinuity between teachings as confusing and so obviously you have Paul and Barnabas go to fix the problem. This fixing of the problem basically accepts that gentiles do not have to follow the law but do have to follow basic guidelines. This I believe is not far from what most gentiles were probably already doing, however, it allows those who were in the middle grounds about circumcision to come to peace about the issue.
February 27, 2013 at 4:01 pm
Nick Van Loo
The passage that this blog post is basically the issue of who can be saved and who cannot be. The men who came down claimed “…Unless you are circumcised according to the Law of Moses…” (Acts 15: 1-2) that one could not possibly be fully committed to God. Paul obviously had a differing opinion and of good reason because he knew and was trying to get everyone else to see that “God is doing something new with the Gentiles”. What I think is important to point out, and this is stated in the blog, that both parties had completely good intentions. Both parties aim and seek were to further the kingdom of God, and the Jews wanted to make sure Paul was doing it the “right” way (at least what I can glean from the blog and from scripture).
I think the Jews were so concerned with making Paul do the “right” thing in their eyes because Paul was the new guy and was shaking up some established rules in the Jewish religion. A result of this shake up was that there wer actual gentiles who were still trying to follow the law even though it was not manadatory to be saved. I agree with what you put in the blog “That is extremely strange in the world of the first century. Perhaps the attraction to the Law was the result of the human need for “religion,” while Paul preaches freedom in Christ”. These people who have just had their world’s rocked by Jesus Christ had the basic need to be doing what they were doing the right way. I don’t think anyone is at fault or trying to keep anyone else out of their secret God Fraternity. Everyone had their own opinion on what they have given their lives for and were passionate enough to speak up about it and seek wisdom from a council. It says in proverbs that it is wise to seek council and that is what the disagreeing parties did when they went before Peter and the other Apostles in Acts 15.
I like in Cbeefus’s post that he highlighted the level of signficance of Israel. Today, there is still much emotion and attention focused on Israel.
February 27, 2013 at 8:59 pm
DJ horsfall
This is a very interesting topic. But I agree in the fact that these were Jewish Christians. I like the picture that is portrayed also. It is badicly showing what these men were. These men were proclaiming the good news but in their way saying that you have to be curcumcised and that you have to keep the good laws too. I think what I liked most about this post is the conclusion. Many people today search for a religion. To be enslaved to a God and have spicific rules. That’s what these men wanted. And that’s what they preached. But Paul preached freedom in Christ. Yes we have rules as Christians but we still see our RELATIONSHIP with Christ as freedom. I did get a little surprised though that Paul and Barnabas had to go back to Jerusalem to figure out the true answer.
February 27, 2013 at 9:46 pm
Hilary Rolff
A few years ago, I struggled a little with Christianity having no ritual. I grew up in a Christian home and the fact that you did not have to “do works” to get to heaven was engrained into my mind. But during my days at community college, I stumbled upon a charismatic-Catholic bible study group. I enjoyed talking to them, and after asking them a lot of questions they seemed believe whole-heartedly that we are all sinners but only through Christ blood and resurrection we are saved. However they did have a lot of “rituals,” like the Lords Prayer, some kind chanting, and weekly communion. This was a whole different world to me. But as I thought through their way of thinking I began to discover that disciplines can be viewed positively. They can shape our “minds, temperaments, and bodies before God and seek the grace of his transformation” (Boa, 79). We must understand that disciplines are responses to divine grace, not having value themselves. Disciplines should bring forth a deep sense of dependence on the Lord, which should, in turn, prompt us to respond with discipline to glorify the Lord.
Also after reading Clinton Arnold’s article on Sceva, Solomon, and Shamanism, it seems to be that human beings are draw to disciplines. They do this even to the extent of mixing belief and religions. The fact that all one has to do is believe in their heart and confess with their mouth that Jesus is LORD, is…a little too easy? I think that humans naturally want structure; they want a formula and a set of rules to follow so they can easily check them off. But the fact is no discipline we undergo can save us, throughout all of time this creates “no small dissension” between those who disbelieve and those who believe.
February 27, 2013 at 10:37 pm
arenberg93
As i reflect on the law, it just seems ridiculous to me. Who in their right mind would ever follow so many tiny stipulations and rules? I forget that the culture in Jerusalem during this day was inbedded with the law. It was a huge part of Jewish life, so to not follow the law at the time was actually considered ridiculous. The majority of the Jewish population was not following the law to the fullest, and yet there was still that mentality amongst the Jewish population. The way the ancient world did religion was through sight. They had idols that they could see, in temples that they could experience. So the law was a very attractive thing in which you could tangibly see the religion you were practicing. So the gentile believers would turn from their idol based worship and want to have a similar experience in which they have something physical to abide by. This is one reason that the gospel of Jesus Christ was so radical. There was nothing physical that you had to do for salvation. Im sure that this idea pleased some people, but it just had to feel wrong. That’s like taking 2 pills everyday to get your needed vitamin c. After years of this you are presented with a single pill that will take care of your vitamin c problem forever. It is great, but wouldn’t you feel weird not taking the pills everyday? wouldn’t you have doubts or insecurities? Salvation in this day was always physical, so when Paul came with a new message that was purely spiritual it was contrary to the culture.
February 27, 2013 at 11:08 pm
Zac_schutte
This post really interests me, especially the last two paragraphs that analyze why Gentiles might be interested in keeping the Law, as well as teh controversy on whether or not they should be required to keep it based on their participation im the Covenant with Israel. A key passage for me in this debate is Acts 15:19-20, where Paul says that they,”should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.” Gentiles who are new to the faith may have a bigger difficulty in keeping the commands opposed to Jews, who were raised within these restrictions. Rather Paul says, “we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, sexual immorality, meat of strangled animals, and from blood.” Paul does not mention circumcision, and these commands are much easier to keep in that they involve moral and eating habits, something that can be changed by being conscienscios.
Another point that might be a factor is that Gentiles may not be included in the Old Covenant. With the death of Christ, a new covenant was formed based on Christ sacrifice. The Gentile converts are under this new covenant, not the old covenant with Israel. This covenant seems to be based specifically for Jews. Therefore, those converted to Judaism should follow these laws, but the Gentiles who are under the new Covenant with Christ are under a whole different set of laws. They may follow customs of the Jews, such as temple worship, merely because it is a way of honoring God and growing in relationship and community. This gives them structure and stability that contributes toward community. They’re intentions may be to build a Christian community and structure based of of the Jewish traditions, rather than start something new on their own.
February 27, 2013 at 11:35 pm
Denise VanBeek
I loved Adam’s analogy about the pills. It is so true that it would be hard to just let go of something that you have followed so religiously for so long. I feel like we are like this with sin. We worship it in the most real way and so when we finally need to let it go and give it up to God, we want to hold on to a piece of it. Now the law isn’t a negative thing but it is something that could be idolized and worshiped more than God himself. I feel like we constantly do that even now. We worship the things that we do for God and not God himself. Some will think of how they have to go to church every Sunday and Wednesday as well as participate in the bible studies, food drives, and other church events to be a good christian. When really the important part of being a Christian is the relationship we have with God, not all the things we do for Him. I feel like this is how the law was for the zealous Jews. They worshiped the law and neglected the relationship because they were too busy following the law. The law was not bad but it could be if used in the wrong way. Isn’t that true for a lot of things in our lives today? It can be a good thing but it can be taken too far to worship that thing instead of focusing on our relationship with the Lord.
February 27, 2013 at 11:38 pm
John Caprari
In Galatians 2 Paul talk about people who are similar to the Judaizers described in Acts 15. “This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves” (Galatians 2:4). Perhaps the false brothers in this passage and the Judaizers in Acts 15 are the same people because according to Galatians 2:1 Paul had gone on a trip to Jerusalem. The matter that arose as described in verse four concerns Gentiles being Christians but not being circumcised. Although as mentioned in many comments earlier, there is a fear that comes with freedom because that means there needs to be decisions made. There were many Gentiles who became Christians and started following the law. Did they all start following the law for that exact reason? Or was there a lot of pressure from other people like Judaizers and Pharisees and false brothers to be circumcised and conform to the Law. According to this passage in Galatians it says that the false brothers were spying in order to make them slaves. If Paul isn’t talking about being a slave to the Law, I don’t know what in the world it would be. Having freedom in Christ meant that the Law wasn’t a necessity. For a Gentile, the law was a burden. It has not been part of eir culture for the last couple thousand years. Why else would God give a revelation to Paul that led him to preaching the gospel to the Gentiles with a different twist. The twist being they didn’t have to follow the law, because following the law probably wasn’t something that looked very appealing to them.
February 28, 2013 at 12:01 am
nfisher2013
The atmosphere of the first century was very religious. There was nowhere in the ancient world where you wouldn’t find religion of any kind. Religion was all around, even for the Gentiles. As the only religion that incorporated the monotheistic idea of God was Judaism, it would make sense that the Gentile converts would desire to follow the Law. These Gentile converts are new to the idea of one God. They are used to following several gods, and even these “gods” had rituals to follow. Thus, it seemed like a perfectly natural transition to continue doing ritualistic things for the God of the Jews. Adam explains this fact well. The Gentiles are used to rituals, so to become part of a religion with no rituals is a shocker, and would definitely be a big change for them.
February 28, 2013 at 8:15 am
Charles
If you equate the Judaizers of Galatians with Acts 15, then how do you understand Peter’s statement in Acts 15:10 that the Judaizers were putting “God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” Was circumcision and kashrut an unbearable yoke? Note that Peter is writing from a Jewish perspective as evidenced by the “we” and the “fathers.” Is there good evidence that Jews struggled with these aspects of Judaism?
February 28, 2013 at 8:57 am
Phillip J. Long
That is a good question, Charles, and I would point to the story in Josephus of Izates, a gentile king, who converted to Judaism. There is a lengthy discussion on whether circumcision was required, one rabbi stating that it was, another that it was not in this case. That story tells me that at least some Jewish teachers were willing to budge on gentile circumcision. At least some Jews were forgoing circumcision for children at the time of the Maccabean revolt, and others underwent surgery to reverse the signs of circumcision. I think I could collect a great deal of evidence that circumcision was a social stigma in the first century, but all that evidence would come from Greek and Roman sources. Other than social stigma, circumcision is not a burden for a Jewish man since it was over and done with when he was born.
The unbearable yoke may not be the food laws themselves, but the additional traditions developed beyond the law with respect to cleanliness. The target of Peter’s statement are pharisees, I do not think that you can say that all the Jews lived with the strict dietary rules that the pharisees did. Having said that, the issue in Acts 15 is circumcision, in the “Antioch incident” in Gal 2, food is the issue.
March 1, 2013 at 11:20 am
Charles
Philip,
Thanks for your response. It is helpful. While one could cite (as you have done) instances where circumcision was an issue, these appear to be exceptions rather than the rule. Also citing these examples is not the same as affirming that Jews like Peter would view circumcision as an unbearable yoke (as you have noted). This of course raises the point I initially raised regarding Peter’s comment. I might add that in Acts 11:8, Peter does not appear to consider the food laws to be an unbearable yoke either. Indeed if anything, Peter seems to consider eating unclean food to be unbearable.
I would also note that Acts 15:5 indicates that that the issue at the Jerusalem Council involved more than circumcision (“The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses”}. It is also worth noting that the decree in Acts 15:28 indicates that the Gentiles were not to be “burdened,” or in other words, exempt from any requirement except for the prohibitions. I realize the origin, meaning, and purpose of the prohibitions continues to be debated. Nonetheless, the point of the decree seems to be fairly clear. This point also seems to be affirmed in Acts 21:25.
March 1, 2013 at 2:13 pm
Phillip J. Long
The upshot of the Jerusalem council seems to be that Gentiles are not converts to Judaism, therefore there should not be “burdened” with the Law. The Jews in Jerusalem seem to agree, at least James and Peter do. My guess (and it can only be a guess) is that the more conservative Jews (Pharisees and priests, Acts 15:5, 21:20-21) do not fully agree with Paul, and would rather the Gentiles fully convert to Judaism. I really do think there is a group of Christian Jews “to the right” of James.
Do you think that the “exceptions” in Acts 15:28 are related to the Pharisees? Three have to do with “eating,” perhaps all four can be explained as participating in meals at temples in the Greco-Roman world. That is a big problem in Corinth later, so perhaps these “exceptions” warn the Gentiles to avoid the banquet halls at pagan temples.
March 1, 2013 at 2:13 pm
Phillip J. Long
Not to answer a question with a link to another post, but I wrote this on circumcision in Galatians some time ago. It is an appropriate link to this discussion.
http://readingacts.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/galatians-24-5-gentiles-and-circumcision/
March 1, 2013 at 5:28 pm
Charles
Phillip,
I appreciate the dialogue. Concerning your question, I do not think that the “exceptions,” that is the prohibitions, are only related to pharisaical sensitivities. It is likely that their sensitivities were more acute than others but that Jews in general would also share the same sensitivities. This is not to say that there might not have been more “liberated” Jews (if I could put it that way).
Concerning Acts 21:20-21, it is crucial to note that the issue there is not Gentiles and the Law but Jews in the diaspora and the Law. Note especially v. 21: “They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.” Indeed, James in 21:25 seems to suggest that the Gentiles and the Law issue had been settled at the Council. The stickier issue was how the Jewish Christian was to relate to the Law.