Paul's Opponents
6/4/2022
Did the Apostle Paul have enemies? He sure did! I never thought about it before, but I think he had many opponents (enemies) because His preaching must have ruffled many feathers. I love him because I love the books of the Bible he wrote and the stand he took for Jesus Christ. This brief article reveals who his opponents were by posing a few questions about this mysterious man. I will leave it at that!
In the letter, he wrote to the Galatians, who were Paul's likely opponents? Who is Paul arguing against in Galatians?
Paul is principally concerned with the controversy surrounding gentile Christians and the Mosaic Law during the Apostolic Age.
His opponents called upon all males to circumcise themselves (5:2-12; 6:12-17). This means that they were either Jewish Christians or Judaizing Christians
Who Were Paul's Opponents Who Inspired Paul to Write to the Galatians. One Theory of Where Galatians Fits
Many scholars agree that Galatians was written after Paul's first missionary journey to the churches in South Galatia. If that is so, then the situation goes like this: Paul makes that first missionary journey in Acts 13 and 14 through the cities of Iconium, Lystra, Derby, and, of course, to Syrian Antioch itself. The geography and the naming of different regions are pretty tricky. This is like when in Scotland, we talk about the borders or the lowlands or whatever, and these do not exactly fit with the different County names and regional jurisdictions in the same way.
After that, Paul is back home in Antioch, enjoying fellowship with Jews and Gentiles in Antioch. And then, Peter comes and joins in and does not worry because, after all, Peter has had his experience in Acts 10 and 11 in the house of Cornelius. Peter is quite happy to share fellowship with the Gentiles. Then some people came from Jerusalem, supposedly sent by James. Then, Peter gets cold feet and withdraws.
Then, according to this reading, Paul hears that similar people have gone to the churches in South Galatia and have said, 'No, actually, you are getting it all wrong. Paul has only given you half of the message. Yes. He has told you about Jesus, and that is wonderful. You have experienced this spiritual awakening. However, they need to become part of the true family, the family of Abraham, the ancient people of God. Furthermore, of course, you need to get circumcised'.
That, I believe, is the historical situation. This is then before the Jerusalem conference of Acts 15. Perhaps Paul, even on his way to Jerusalem to hammer this one out in public with the other Apostles, dashes off the letter to the Galatians to say, 'Do not do it. Do not go there. That is a false trail. You will give up everything you have gained if you go that way.
Why did Barnabas leave Paul?
Barnabas and Paul separate over the role Mark should play when they decide to return to where they had preached the gospel (Acts 15:36). Barnabas wanted to take Mark on the journey, but Paul was convinced this was not a good idea because Mark had abandoned them during their first journey.
The incident at Antioch was an Apostolic Age dispute between the Apostle Paul and Peter, which occurred in the city of Antioch around the middle of the first century. The primary source for the incident is Paul's Epistle to the Galatians 2:11–14. Since the 19th century figure, Ferdinand Christian Baur, biblical scholars have found evidence of conflict among the leaders of early Christianity; for example, James D. G. Dunn proposes that Peter was a "bridge-man" between the opposing views of Paul and James, brother of Jesus. The outcome of the incident remains uncertain, resulting in several Christian views on the Old Covenant.
Gentile Christians and the Torah
Artistic depiction of Paul the Apostle (Vincenzo Gemito, 1917).
Paul was responsible for bringing Christianity to Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, and Antioch. Bible scholars agree that "Paul saw Jesus' resurrection as ushering in the eschatological[1] time foretold by biblical prophets in which the pagan 'Gentile' nations would turn from their idols and embrace the one true God of Israel (Zechariah 8:20-23), and Paul saw himself as specially called by God to declare God's eschatological[1] acceptance of the Gentiles and summon them to turn to God." According to certain Bible Scholars, the primary concern of Paul's writings on Jesus' role and salvation by faith is not the individual conscience of human sinners and their doubts about being chosen by God or not. However, the main concern is the problem of the inclusion of Gentile (Greek) Torah-observers into God's covenant. As Gentiles began to convert from Paganism to early Christianity, a dispute arose among Jewish Christian leaders as to whether or not Gentile Christians needed to observe all the doctrines of the Law of Moses.
The inclusion of Gentiles into early Christianity posed a problem for the Jewish identity of some of the early Christians: the new Gentile converts were neither required to be circumcised nor to observe the Mosaic Law. Observance of the Jewish commandments, including circumcision, was regarded as a token of the membership of the Abrahamic covenant, and the most traditionalist faction of Jewish Christians (i.e., converted Pharisees) insisted that Gentile converts had to be circumcised as well. By contrast, the rite of circumcision was considered appalling and repulsive during the period of Hellenization[2] of the Eastern Mediterranean. It was significantly objectionable to Classical civilization, both from early Greeks and Romans, which instead valued the foreskin positively.
Around the same time, the subject of Gentiles and the Torah has also been debated among the Tannaitic[3] rabbis as recorded in the Talmud. This resulted in the doctrine of the Seven Laws of Noah, to be followed by Gentiles, and the determination that "Gentiles may not be taught the Torah." The 18th-century Rabbi Jacob Emden believed that Jesus' original objective, especially Paul's, was only to convert Gentiles to follow the Seven Laws of Noah while allowing Jews to keep the Mosaic Law for themselves.
Paul objected strongly to the insistence on keeping all of the Jewish commandments, considering it a significant threat to his doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ. According to certain commentators, Paul's opposition to male circumcision for Gentiles aligns with the Old Testament predictions that "in the last days the gentile nations would come to the God of Israel, as gentiles (Zechariah 8:20–23), not as proselytes to Israel." For Paul, Gentile male circumcision was an affront to God's intentions. According to one commentator, "Paul saw himself as what some called a salvation-historical figure in his own right," who was "personally and singularly deputized by God to bring about the predicted ingathering (the "fullness") of the nations (Romans 11:25)."
Council of Jerusalem
Paul left Antioch and traveled to Jerusalem to discuss his mission to the Gentiles with the Pillars of the Church. Describing the outcome of this meeting, Paul said that "they recognized that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised."The Acts of the Apostles describe the dispute as being resolved by Peter's speech and concluding with a decision by James, the brother of Jesus, not to require circumcision from Gentile converts. Acts quote Peter and James as saying:
"My brothers, you are well aware that God made his choice among you from early days that the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe through my mouth. Moreover, God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the Holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between them and us, for he purified their hearts by faith. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the shoulders of the disciples that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they."—?Acts 15:7–11
The Eastern Orthodox Church still observes this decree.
The historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles is disputed. While the Council of Jerusalem was described as resulting in an agreement to allow Gentile converts exemption from most Jewish commandments, another group of Jewish Christians, sometimes termed Judaizers, felt that Gentile Christians needed to comply with Moses's Law and fully opposed the Council's decision.
Incident
According to the Epistle to the Galatians chapter 2, Peter had traveled to Antioch, and there was a dispute between him and Paul. The Epistle does not exactly say if this happened after the Council of Jerusalem or before it. However, the incident is mentioned in Paul's letter as his next subject after describing a meeting in Jerusalem that some scholars consider to be the Council. An alternative time, which many believe to be better suited to the facts of the incident, is that it took place long before the Jerusalem Council, perhaps shortly after Paul's famine visit of Acts 11. This conclusion makes more sense of Peter's apparent change of heart. Galatians 2:11–13 says:
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he was wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. However, when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
To Paul's dismay, the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch sided with Peter, including Paul's long-time associate Barnabas: "The rest of the Jews joined in this charade, and even Barnabas was drawn into the hypocrisy."
The Acts of the Apostles relates a fallout between Paul and Barnabas soon after the Council of Jerusalem but gives the reason as the fitness of John Mark to join Paul's mission (Acts 15:36–40). Acts also describe when Peter went to the house of a gentile. Acts 11:1–3 says:
The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of the uncircumcised and ate with them."
This is described as having happened before in 44 AD and thus years before the Council of Jerusalem (dated c. 50). Acts is entirely silent about any confrontation between Peter and Paul or any other time.
A minority of scholars argue that the confrontation was not between Paul and Peter, the Apostle, but another one of the identified 70 disciples of the time with the same name as Peter. In 1708, a French Jesuit, Jean Hardouin, wrote a dissertation that argues "Peter" was actually "another Peter," thus the emphasis of using the name Cephas (Aramaic for Peter). In 1990 Bart D. Ehrman wrote an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature, similarly arguing that Peter and Cephas should be understood as different people, citing the writing of Clement of Alexandria and the Epistula Apostolorum in support of his theory. Ehrman's article received a detailed critique from Dale Allison, who argued that Peter and Cephas are the same people. Nowadays, most scholars agree with Allison, and Ehrman himself has partially backed down from his position, stating that he is undecided on the matter.
Outcome
The outcome of the incident remains uncertain; indeed, the issue of Biblical law in Christianity remains disputed. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "St. Paul's account of the incident leaves no doubt that St. Peter saw the justice of the rebuke." In contrast, a well-known commentator states: "The blowup with Peter was a total failure of political bravado, and Paul soon left Antioch as persona non grata, never again to return."
According to church tradition, Peter and Paul taught together in Rome and founded Christianity in that city. Eusebius cites Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, saying, "They taught together in like manner in Italy and suffered martyrdom simultaneously." This may indicate their reconciliation. In 2 Peter 3:16, Paul's letters are referred to as "scripture," indicating the respect the writer had for Paul's apostolic authority. However, most modern scholars regard the Second Epistle of Peter as written in Peter's name by another author.
Who opposed Paul in the Bible?
Peter, for one! According to the Epistle to the Galatians chapter 2, Peter had traveled to Antioch, and there was a dispute between him and Paul.
The Enemies of Paul: Demons, Satan, Betrayers, and Apostles: Risk Analysis and Recovery of Paul's Opponents in Thessalonica, Galatia, and Corinth.
Paul's conflict with vicious enemies, human and otherwise, led him to employ efficacious powers, charismata (charismatic powers), and controversial and sometimes illegal practices that are only coherent when placed in the first century Hellenistic-Roman world. These included soul and spirit transportation, possession, and exorcisms, special techniques to repel a demonic attack, as well as what was considered the darkest of black magic in the ancient world—the casting of death curses, which called on Satan to infect, harm, and even kill his enemies. These can be recovered in striking detail using risk analysis of his undisputed writings and comparing them with contemporary sources, papyri, and documents independent of the New Testament. The results demonstrate that Paul's letters are so much more than simply intellectual and rhetorical correspondences—they are infused with dangerous mystical and charismatic powers feared in an ancient world that was saturated with prevalent, active dark forces and multi-layered human and supernatural conflicts; of angels and demons at war; of charismata and anathemata (deadly curses); and Paul's expectation of the Hemera kuriou, "Day of the Lord," that would defeat Satan and the curse of death via Pistis (faith) in the efficacious Evangelion (gospel) of agape (love).
Paul's Most Polemical[4] Letter
Galatians is easily Paul's most polemical letter, and as a result, it sometimes feels quite confused. However, that I think is the historical situation. He is switching from one foot to another and from one task to another in his argument.
I date Galatians very early. That is to say, in the late forties. Moreover, I put it either from Antioch or somewhere in that area, as Paul is preparing to go South for the Jerusalem conference.
It is evident in Galatians that Paul has some particular opponents in mind. It is hard to precisely know who these people are or what to call them. It used to be the case that people would refer to them as the Judaizers, but that is a misnomer. To 'Judaize' in the literature of the time does not mean people who are persuading other people to become Jews. It means Gentiles who are trying to become Jews.
So if you like, the Galatians themselves are the would-be Judaizers. The opponents, who some commentators simply called the teachers or the missionaries, are Jewish Christian missionaries who have gone to the churches of Galatia to say to them, 'Actually, in order to go the whole way, this means taking on board the whole Law, the food laws, the Sabbath, and particularly then, circumcision.'
What Motivated Paul's Opponents?
Why were they doing this? It may simply have been, and many have advanced theories like this, that Pharisaic Jews, which they probably were if they were taking the trouble to do this, were worried that if people were claiming to be part of, in some sense, the family of Israel, while not keeping the covenant properly, they were letting the side down big time.
There are many texts in which rabbis say things like, 'if only all Israel would keep the law for a single day, then the age to come would dawn, the Messiah would come, and it would all work out.' They may be just thinking, 'these people are blaspheming, and we have got to sort them out.'
There may be a more subtle reason, which some have recently suggested. That whole area of central and southwestern Turkey, we know from archeology, was a major center during the Imperial cult period. This new Roman religion worshipped the goddess Roma itself. It worshiped the Empire, the Emperor, and his family. New temples to the Emperor were springing up. Great games and festivities were organized, which would involve ritual adoration of, or allegiance to the Emperor, worshiping him as a god or whatever.
Interestingly, the Jews were exempt from this because the Romans had found that the Jews were a pretty recalcitrant unruly lot a century or so earlier. You could try to force them to worship pagan gods, but they would cheerfully roll over and bear their necks and say, 'you just have to kill us in that case.' The Romans, who were pretty pragmatic about that sort of thing, said, 'Okay, okay. If it really matters that much to you, here's the deal you Jews, need not worship our gods and our Emperor, but what you must do is you must pray to your God for our state.' Moreover, they meant it.
Firm Facts
• Historically, most people thought that Paul's opponents were Jewish Christians.
• The Jerusalem Church, it was believed, was comprised of two groups – Hellenists and Hebrews, and the two did not see eye to eye.
• Many of their differences arose from their distinct cultures and preferred use of language. The Hellenists spoke Greek; the Hebrews spoke Hebrew.
• The Hebrews would have given weight to the old Mosaic traditions and a strict interpretation of its requirements.
• The Hellenists would have been more progressive and open to new interpretations. (They did not require circumcision, following strict dietary laws, or observance of the Sabbath.)
• It is not hard to see why they might have had problems, but now scholars think those categories are too simplistic and limited.
• While these might have been the major divisions, it is more likely that within each group were additional segments.
• There might have been some overlap, but mostly they had different visions and different approaches to fulfilling those visions. In short, they did not get along with each other. Each believed, of course, that they were in the right and had the right message.
• The first significant category would have been the "Circumcision Mission." These folks were primarily concerned with maintaining Jewish identity and reaching out to the Jewish people.
• The other obvious category would be the "Uncircumcision Mission." These would have been individuals who were primarily concerned with reaching out to Gentiles.
• The conservative element of the former group states its case most succinctly at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1ff). They firmly believed that all believers (Jews and Gentiles) had to be circumcised. No one could be saved without full observance of the law. It is not known who were the leaders of this group.
• The moderate element of the former group believed in both missions but was primarily committed to reaching out to Jews, especially those living in Palestine. Gentiles were tolerated but not sought out. It is believed that James, the brother of Jesus, was the leader of this group.
• If members of this group went outside Palestine, they were expected to be utterly observant of Jewish practices. This is likely where Peter ran into trouble in Antioch when messengers from James came to town (See Gal 2:12).
• In the eyes of this moderate group, both missions were completely independent. However, if they did intersect, the Gentiles would abstain from four elements that were particularly offensive to Jews as decreed by the Jerusalem Council.
• It is thought that this group disappeared with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70CE.
• Gentiles were free from the demands of the Mosaic Law and circumcision. The more liberal element of the former group reached out to Jews both within and beyond Palestine. They believed in two missions and felt one led to the other. It is thought that Peter might have been the leader of this group and that he had traveled extensively throughout the region, ending with Rome.
• This more liberal element of the Circumcision Mission might have felt that the traditions and rules from Jerusalem only applied if other Jews were present. When they were in the company of Gentiles, they were free to have full fellowship with them. This would be why Peter ate freely with Gentiles until messengers from James came to Antioch.
• It is likely that members of this group still believed that circumcision and observance of the law was the better way but not necessary to enter the kingdom.
• The conservative faction of the Uncircumcision Mission was very similar to the liberal group of the Circumcision Mission. The significant difference was that their primary interest was in reaching out to Gentiles. Barnabas might have been the leader of this group.
• Their Jewish history might have made them somewhat sensitive to influences from James, but their primary interest was Gentiles. Gentiles were allowed to remain free from the law and circumcision – as were they until messengers from James came to town.
• Paul's efforts best describe the moderate group of the Uncircumcision Mission. Paul was clear that Christianity grew out of Judaism. He wanted to include both Jews and Gentiles, always saying "to the Jews first."
• Paul believed strongly that Gentiles were free from the burdens of the law, including circumcision. Moreover, he went so far as to say that the Gentiles had the true understanding of the gospel because of this.
• When these Jews were in Jerusalem, they needed to be observant, but they were free to have full fellowship with Gentiles outside the area.
• Paul probably knew that his mission to the Gentiles would ultimately be the undoing of the Jewish mission, but he was so impelled to do the work that he could not wait.
• The most liberal element of the Uncircumcision Mission is hinted at in the Corinthian correspondence. A group of people aspired to be free of all law, including rituals and morals. This radical group rejected any Jewish identity within the Christian movement. It is not known who its leaders were.
• In short, James was the leader of the moderate group reaching out to Jews; Paul was the leader of the moderate group reaching out to Gentiles. In between were Peter and Barnabas, both leading factions to the left and right of the center and perhaps playing a significant role as mediators between the two main characters.
• Even this, however, might be an oversimplification of the situation. It helps to think of the early Church as "messy" with many factions, each believing they embodied the correct message.
• The notion that members of the early Church were all of "one mind" is pure fiction. There were many competing minds with competing visions. The Circumcision Mission pretty much ended with the destruction of Jerusalem.
• Paul carried on the Uncircumcised mission throughout the region, and it is his legacy that we celebrate.
General Notes:
[1] eschatological concerns expectations of the end of human history, or the world itself. The end of the world or end times is predicted by several world religions (both Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic), which teach that adverse world events will reach a climax. The belief that the end of the world is imminent is known as apocalypticism and, over time, has been held both by members of mainstream religions and doomsday cults.
[2] Hellenization refers to the spread of Greek culture that had begun after the conquest of Alexander the Great in the fourth century B.C.E.
[3] Tannaim, Tannaitic (Aramaic[tanna], "repeaters," called "teachers") were the rabbinic sages whose views were recorded in the Mishnah from approximately
