Skip to main content

Galatians 1:6-10: Paul's Opponents in Galatia

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that person be under God's curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let that person be under God's curse!

10 Am I now trying to win human approval, or God's approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. (TNIV)

Right off the bat it seems pretty clear that Paul had opponents in Galatia. Who were they and what did they teach? In his Galatians commentary, J. Louis Martyn provides a detailed answer that is very helpful on pp. 117-126. I'll sketch his answer very briefly below (and try to avoid the debate over the New Perspective on Paul, for now) because it's critical that we have a general understanding of what Paul was arguing against in order for us to understand what he was arguing for.

The Teachers were Jewish Christians with ties to an influential portion of the Jerusalem church whom they believe they represent. They were not present in the church at Galatia when Paul founded it, but later came to Galatia, perhaps seeking their own Gentile mission. Like Paul, the Teachers probably called their message 'the gospel,' creating confusion, since their gospel had the Law as the point of departure rather than Christ. Rather than through Christ alone, it was through the Law that one became part of the people of God and thus received God's Spirit, and to follow the Law correctly one needed to be circumcised. Jesus was secondary to the Law.

Comments

  1. Quote: “The Teachers were Jewish Christians with ties to an influential “

    (le-havdil), A logical analysis (found here: www.netzarim.co.il (that is the only legitimate Netzarim)) of all extant source documents and archeology proves that the historical Ribi Yehosuha ha-Mashiakh (the Messiah) from Nazareth and his talmidim (apprentice-students), called the Netzarim, taught and lived Torah all of their lives; and that Netzarim and Christianity were always antithetical.

    Judaism and Christianity have always been two antithetical religions, and thus the term “Jewish Christians” is an oxymoron.

    Ribi Yehoshuas talmidim Netzairm still observes Torah today (see the above website), and the research in the above website implies that becoming one of Ribi Yehoshuas Netzarim-followers is the only way to follow him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'Jewish Christian' is not an oxymoron. They were ethnically Jewish and religiously Christian.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…