Question: How far is it possible to discover what was being taught by Paul’s opponents in Galatia, and what arguments does Paul use to respond to them?
The question here concerns our knowledge of the past, methodological approaches for studying that past and exegetical investigation. In approaching such a complex hermeneutical challenge, commanding such a diverse array of viewpoints (Guthrie,1990,483-485), it would be wise to articulate a logical and efficient way of answering the question. We must first explore the limits of historical methodology and exegesis and then apply it to the case concerned (Theissen,1982,176). From this foundation an endeavour to investigate the teaching discernible by Paul’s opponents in Galatia in light of what is found in regard to methodological limitations will be conducted. This will entail looking at the church context of the Galatians so as to understand the nature of the teaching and congregational setting into which Paul’s opponents were speaking. Finally, after establishing what type of teaching Paul is responding to, an adequate position will have been carved out from which to understand his polemic as seen in the letter to the Galatians. It should be made clear, for the purposes of this essay, the idea of historical relativism or the claim that there is no historical truth to be had, shall be dismissed (Bernstein,1985,8-9). This is justified in that the question assumes historical truth in that a person called Paul existed, that he had opponents and that they were teaching in Galatia.
When engaging with the case set before us we come up against significant hermeneutical problems. Is it possible to accurately construct the context of the letter to the Galatians and to correctly interpret it? Being so far from the original context one would do well to agree with Lurhmann(1992,126), that in looking at what was being taught and by whom, “we will be able to get no further than a very general characterization.”. Further, it would be logical to be light footed in attempting to interpret the text. For the purposes of Paul, writing Galatians was not to give exegetes information about the subject to which he was speaking (Theissen,1982,175). Rather, he was responding to a group of churches, in either north or south Galatia and presupposing certain things that people living today are incapable of comprehending (e.g. Gal.4:13) (Marshall,Travis,Paul,2011,228). On top of this the problem of Paul’s biased understanding of what he believed his opponents were teaching also rears its head , despite Longenecker(1990,291) perceiving that Paul did know of their activities. Scholars are not sure whether Paul received a letter from the Galatians themselves, or whether he received an aural message from someone troubled by the goings on there (Luhrmann,1992,3). All there is to be had that speaks into the specific situation of the Galatians is Paul’s letter to them. Despite all of these problems however, there is still information to be had (Theissen,1982,179). These limitations do not prevent an accurate interpretation of the letter but they do grant reason for cautiousness and the avoidance of heavy reliance on speculative hypotheses. Paul’s arguments and their content should be taken into account, for whether it is only a general picture that is attainable or not it seems important to attempt to form such a picture. Indeed, “Had it not been a question of theology really to be taken seriously [at Galatia], Paul would not have needed to react so pointedly to its proclamation…” (Luhrmann,1992,123).
Now that certain methodological limitations have been established, approaching the teaching of Paul’s opponents is justified. To accurately establish what this teaching was the context of the church in Galatia will undoubtedly need to be taken into account. One might go as far to say that it would be ‘inconceivable’ not to take this into account (Thiselton,1992,261). From the text a number of facts can be discovered about the Galatian congregations which will be of benefit in understanding opposition to Paul. The Galatians were predominantly gentile (Gal.4:8), and the gospel came to them via Paul (Gal.4:13-14). They are now to be faced with the confusion of having to understand why their church founder stands in opposition to the teaching that they are receiving from other teachers, who also proclaim to be in the possession of gospel truth (Gal.1:6-7). They were also deviating from Paul’s teaching only shortly after he had left them (Gal.1:6). These verses alone give some interesting insight into the life of the church at Galatia and give grounds for a number of inferences. Paul has left them recently, and they are not a mature community of Christians but like children (Gal.4:19), which almost definitely entails no thorough articulation of a systematic theology. These statements give grounds for concluding that at the churches in Galatia there was ripe opportunity for heresy and manipulation, by false teachers outside of and among the congregation itself.
It is in this context that the Galatians and the teaching by which they were being deceived is to be understood. But what is this teaching? What can be deduced given the limitations that have already been outlined in the previous section? In approaching these ideas it is important that it is understood the agitation that the Galatians were suffering from was what led Paul to write to them in the first place (Roetzel,1998.79). It should be theoretically possible, therefore, to be able to reconstruct to some degree, what Paul’s opponents were teaching. Where should clues be found concerning what the agitators were teaching? Primarily with the letter to the Galatians itself (Martyn,1997,17), and where Paul mentions his opponent’s teaching within that letter. In a number of passages, the same themes frequently recur within his arguments; distinctive observations can be made from them regarding his opponent’s teaching. It is clear that the Jewish law (Bruce,1982,20) and circumcision are key to the opponents teaching (Gal 6:12-13) and given Paul’s emphasis on Abraham (Gal 3:6-18) one may also logically conclude that this was also part of the opposing polemic (Longenecker,1998,31) . Indeed, these themes plague the entire book (Gal.5:3-4; Gal.4:21; Gal.3:2; Gal.2:15-6). Confident inferences that the teaching concerned was focussed on these areas can therefore be made. Even the most radical scholars do not deny the prominence of the view that the opponent’s teaching is in some way concerned with the law and circumcision, although they do admittedly question the identity of the opponents, their motives and focus (Schmithals,1972,13). Judging also by Paul’s defence of his apostleship early in the book (Gal.1:10-2:21) one may conclude that his opponents attacked him personally. It has been suggested that this might be a rhetorical device on the part of Paul (Schreiner,1996,46). This seems implausible on the other hand, because of the force and thoroughness of these two chapters (Schreiner,1996,47). The focus of the opponents’ teaching then, seems Jewish in its emphasis, but on coming to this conclusion it is met with the challenge from Gal.4:10 and Gal.4:3; 4:8-9, which prima-facie, could imply a teaching with subtle ties to cultic/pagan or non-Jewish religious practices (Luhrmann,1992,124). Scholars such as Munck (1959,87) capitalise on these references and go on to imply some form of gentile Christian-Jewish syncretism or like Schmithals (1972,37) construe Gnostic teaching as present. To construe these passages as reversing the Jewish focus of the opponents’ teaching, would however, be incorrect. For these passages can also be largely interpreted in the context of Paul’s Judaic worldview (Bruce,1982,29-31). Furthermore, at Gal. 4:8 Paul is clearly referring to the Galatians’ past and not to a teaching that is presently taking place in the Galatian churches (Bruce,1982,30). This Jewish focus is to be supported by the Jewish nature of the rest of the letter concerning law, circumcision and Abraham. Alternate hypotheses that bring this view into question are then to bear the burden of proof. Indeed, Lutgert’s proposition that there were two different and opposing teachings (Bruce,1982,23) fails almost outright due to its heavy dependence on speculation , and that it multiplies explanations beyond necessity. It is no surprise that Lutgert’s theory has been dismissed by some as ‘untenable’ (Schmithals,1972,16). It can be deduced then, that those teaching in Galatia were teaching that to be saved one must be “justified by the law” (Gal.5:4). It follows that the theology of Paul’s opposition was directly in contrast to his Christological approach, and that they thought that he was teaching a false gospel. Allusions to this vehement theological conflict might be seen in Gal.1:20 and undoubtedly at Gal.3:1. To delve any further beyond these inferences into the teaching of these agitators, the limits of the ‘general characterisation’ available would be breached and so caution is here exercised. What has been established here however is of great profit for distinguishing the focus of Paul’s arguments, giving solid ground on which to plot the structure of his polemic.
To this opposing polemic the Apostle responds. Paul, who is perhaps at his most daunting in his letter to the Galatians, argues his case fiercely. On initially reading the letter one is met with the lack of a thanksgiving, which appears so often in the other authentic Pauline epistles (Stirewalt,2003,94), clearly indicating the seriousness of the situation. Following on from this his argument is structured by beginning with defence of his apostolic authority, indeed, he defends it from the start (Gal.1:1) and equivocates his ministry to that of Peter’s (Gal.2:8). All the other sections are subordinate in their relationship to this initial defence. It is on asserting his authority as an apostle that grants the validity to the rest of his polemic. On doing this he has established the starting block on which to criticise the theological flaws in the arguments of his opponents. Thus he can boldly assert, “You foolish Galatians!” (Gal.3:1), not dwelling on this fiery outburst he endeavours to deal with the allegedly misplaced theology that has led to this foolishness. Indeed, following on from this the Galatians are met with a solid paragraph of questions (Gal.3:1-5) which one can imagine providing much food for thought for the Galatian congregations and also providing a bouncing board for Paul’s following rhetoric. Expanding on what he has just said, Paul articulates his case in accordance with scriptural examples through that of Abraham (Gal.3:6-18) and the allegorizing of the story of Hagar and Sarah (Gal.4:21-31). Martyn (1997,300) articulates a structural pattern for these examples, showing that Paul attempts to turn his opponents interpretation of that text on its head so as to serve his own purposes, which brings us back to the key issues of interpretation concerning the law and circumcision. Paul writes, “Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law” (Gal.5:3) . In Judaism the law is an indivisible entity, “…a person or community is not at liberty to pick and choose its practices…” (Longenecker,1998,32). The law however is also a curse (Gal.3:13). These statements are what comprise the central premises in Paul’s argument. His argument might be formulated as follows,
1. The law is a curse
2. Those who are circumcised are obligated to obey the law
3. Therefore those who are circumcised are under the curse of the law
Paul then points out that far from not bringing Christ into question (Luhrmann,1992,125), righteousness cannot be achieved through the law. Indeed, if his argument is coherent, then the theology of his opponents totally undermines what was done through Christ (Gal.2:21). He eventually goes on to point out that the full obligation of the law is not adhered to by his opposition (Gal.6:13), incriminating the theological foundations of their teaching further and shouting out in frustration that these agitators should, “castrate themselves!” (Gal.5:12). Having dealt with the theological paradigm of his opponents, so much so in the NIV that he now assumes that the Galatians are in the Spirit (Gal. 5:25), Paul’s argument culminates in urging the Galatians to live by the Spirit and to avoid the sinful nature (Gal 5:16-6:10), finally rebuking his opponents once more (Gal.6:11-18). No one can deny the power of Paul’s rhetoric when it comes to his response to the heresy at Galatia, but as mentioned previously this gives ample reason to be cautious in how much should be read into his polemic and its reflection of his opponent’s teaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment