Some commentators stumble over Paul's characterization of the Judaizers as "false brothers." Among those who call themselves Evangelicals, the reluctance to accept Paul's verdict tends to be less blatant, but it is difficult to shake the impression that they struggle with it. To illustrate, L. Ann Jervis writes, "In defending himself Paul caricatures his opponents as false," "He obviously feels threatened by their actions," and "Whether Paul's presentation of the rival evangelists' position is fair or not, it is clear that Paul was willing to go to almost any lengths to defend the Gentiles' rights to be believers in Jesus Christ without having to adopt the Jewish law."¹²

In commenting on the term "false brothers," R. Alan Cole writes, "It is tempting to see in this a denial that these Judaizers are acting the part of true brothers at all. They are utterly lacking in love."¹³ How "acting in love" carries any relevance to what Paul means by the term is unexplained. But other than that, the statement is curiously padded. So the fact that Paul calls them false does not settle the question but only makes it "tempting" to see them as false. And even if they are false, it is not that they are false brothers, but that they are not "acting the part of true brothers."

Then, he writes, "But the NEB may be right in going further with its blunt translation 'sham-Christians.' In this case, Paul would be denying the very reality of the Christian faith of the Judaizers." He entertains the possibility that it "may be right" to understand the term "false brothers" to mean…well, false brothers. And if they are false brothers, then "the very reality of the Christian faith" is also denied to the Judaizers. This is correct despite the weak language. To say it more clearly, the meaning here is that if these people are false brothers as Paul says, then they are sham-Christians – that is, not Christians – or people who pretend to be Christians.

He continues, "This is a serious charge; but Paul knew them far better than we can ever do." If this offers hope that Cole tries to take biblical inerrancy seriously, he squashes it as he completes the thought and writes, "although it is true that in theological controversy he sometimes uses extreme language (Phil. 3:2)." If read by itself, the second part of the statement could mean that Paul sometimes uses strong words against his opponents, but these words accurately describe their true condition. This would be acceptable, but Cole means something else. The remark is said against the first part of the statement, which says that Paul knew his opponents better than we can ever do when he calls them false brothers. And Cole says this in the context of considering whether the term "false brothers" means that the Judaizers were non-Christians who pretend to be Christians.

In other words, the second part of Cole's statement neutralizes the first, meaning that although Paul knew his opponents better when he calls them false brothers, he sometimes uses "extreme language," so that what he says might be an exaggeration. So, although Cole refrains from denying that the term "false brothers" means what it obviously does, since "Paul knew them far better than we can ever do," that he sometimes uses "extreme language" – exaggerated language – means that in this case we cannot be sure whether the Judaizers are really non-Christians after all.

He offers Philippians 3:2 as an example that Paul uses extreme language. The verse says, "Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh." The denunciation is indeed strong, but by what standard may we call it extreme, in the sense that it is an exaggeration that is in fact untrue and inaccurate? Christ himself used stronger language than this against the Pharisees. If we read Scripture on its own terms – on God's terms – then we will say that this is an appropriate way to describe the Judaizers and false teachers. If the language seems extreme, it is because the errors that it addresses are so extreme, vile, and evil. But Cole takes it as a reflection on Paul and not the Judaizers.

Cole fails to see Paul's language from the proper perspective because he reads Scripture on his own terms, by a standard formed from his culture, background, and personality. So when Paul's language appears extreme on this scale – that is, Cole's personal comfort – he takes it as an exaggeration, and in a way that renders it a false statement. The idea of "false" in the term "false brothers" is not one of degree, but it is an absolute. People cannot be more or less false Christians – they are either Christians or they are not. And Paul says they are not. If this is an exaggeration, then this means that Paul calls them false Christians when they are in fact true Christians. Thus by his comment Cole commits himself to a denial of biblical inerrancy, although this might not be his intention.

One who has not been disappointed with such "scholarship" over and over again might be surprised that any Christian commentator could stumble over the term given what Paul says in 1:6-9. There he asserts, more than one time and in more than one way, that anyone who preaches and/or believes a "gospel" different than the one that he preached to the Galatians and different than the one that they first accepted is "eternally condemned." Since the individuals in 2:4 advance a different doctrine, they are therefore false brothers, destined for hell. The reasoning is so simple and direct that one would expect any child to understand it.

Even more perplexing is that commentators seem to have less resistance against this emphatic passage than the mere term "false brothers." And by this fact we have located the underlying spiritual problem – namely, they affirm the message but oppose the application. In other words, they are hypocrites who pay lip service to the inspiration of Scripture, but balk at any concrete application of a teaching that they in fact oppose. Paul is permitted to say anything he wishes until he applies it to actual people. If they are reluctant to apply biblical condemnations against those in the distant past, even those whom the entire New Testament denounces as the enemies of God, we wonder if anyone in the present day could be condemned in their eyes.

This reluctance to accept Paul's application of 1:6-9 to the individuals in 2:4 disqualifies them as biblical expositors or for any sort of ministry, because they have dismissed the whole point of Paul's letter to the Galatians. The apostle stresses in the strongest manner possible that anyone who preaches or believes anything different, such as the Judaizers, are eternally condemned. Later he would add, "for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing" (2:21), so that the Judaizers' message is a denial of the gospel and the work of Christ. Now if that does not make them "false," what does? The commentators feign assent to Paul's message, but draw back when he applies it to actual people in the same letter. This makes it certain that the flock of God cannot depend on them as biblical expositors or as guardians of the faith.

 

NOTES

¹² L. Ann Jervis, Galatians (Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), p. 54.

¹³ R. Alan Cole, Galatians (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), p. 105.

Posted in Expositions | Permanent Link