Numerous rhetorical analyses of the letter have shown that Paul does everything in his power to persuade the Galatians that his views are right and that those of his opponents are wrong (D.F. Tolmie, ―The Rhetorical Analysis of the Letter to the Galatians: 1995-2005‖, in Exploring New Rhetorical Approaches to Galatians (ed. D.F. Tolmie; AcTSup 9; Bloemfontein: University of the Free State, 2007), 1-28). In fact, from a rhetorical perspective, one of the conspicuous aspects of the letter is its aggressive tone. For example, Paul makes abundant use of vilification. In one section of the letter, Galatians 5:7-12, it is even used as the dominant rhetorical strategy (Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, 183-188): In verse 7, Paul accuses the opponents of preventing the Galatians from obeying202 the truth; in verse 8, he says that they are acting against God; in verse 9, he uses a proverb to associate them and their views with leaven, thereby suggesting a process of corruption; in verse 10b, the opponents are (collectively) described as ὁ ηαπ ζζυν, and portrayed as people who will be punished by God; and in verse 12, they are described as ο ναζηαηοῦνηερ. Furthermore, Paul uses vilification as a supportive rhetorical strategy throughout the letter, to such an extent that vilification may be classified as one of the most important arguments in his letter. In fact, if one compiles a list of all the instances of vilification in the letter (apart from those already indicated in Gal. 5:7-12 above), one ends with a long list: The opponents confuse the Galatians and pervert the gospel of Christ. Anyone preaching a gospel different from that of Paul, is cursed (Gal. 1:7). The believers in Jerusalem who wanted Titus to be circumcised, were false brothers, brought in secretly, who had slipped in to spy on the liberty that the believers had in Christ, and who wanted to enslave them spiritually (Gal. 2:4).

1. Peter stood condemned in Antioch; he withdrew himself and separated himself because he was afraid of those of the circumcision; the others (even Barnabas) acted hypocritically; they were not walking according to the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:11-14). The Galatians are foolish and were bewitched by the opponents (Gal. 3:11). Those who trust in the works of the law are under a curse (Gal. 3:10). The opponents are zealous to win the Galatians over, but for no good; they want to exclude them from Paul (Gal. 4:17-18). The ―gospel‖ of the opponents represents spiritual slavery, correlating with the nature of the son of the slave woman (Gal. 4:21-5:1). The opponents merely wish to make a good impression in the flesh: they force the Galatians to be circumcised to prevent themselves from being persecuted for the cross of Christ; they do not keep the law themselves; and they want the Galatians to be circumcised, that they may boast in their flesh (Gal. 6:12-13).
2. Apart from vilification, Paul also uses other rhetorical techniques that are forceful or highly emotional. He rebukes the Galatians often, for example, in Galatians 1:6 (they so quickly deserted the one who called them) and Galatians 3:3 (they are foolish, because they began with the Spirit, but are ending with the flesh; see also Gal. 3:1; 4:8-11 and 4:15-16). He also uses a twofold curse – a very forceful rhetorical technique – in Galatians 1:8-9. Furthermore, he uses an oath in Galatians 1:20 (―Before God I do not lie‖) as well as a solemn declaration in Galatians 4:15 (―I testify that, had it been possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me‖). He threatens them in Galatians 5:2-4 (―Christ will be of no benefit to you … you have fallen away from grace‖); and he even uses sarcasm in Galatians 5:12 (―I wish they would castrate themselves!‖) and in Galatians 5:15 (―If you bite and devour one another …‖). In view of all the rhetorical techniques pointed out above, it is difficult to reach any other conclusion than that Paul indeed uses violent rhetoric in Galatians. One should realise that Paul does not believe that there is any chance that his opponents will change their views. There are some indications that he still entertains a slight hope that he might succeed in convincing the Galatians to accept his views (for example, in Gal. 3:3b and 5:10); but there are no indications in the letter that he believes that he will convince the opponents. This must have had an influence on his rhetorical strategy.

Since he believes that it is impossible to change the minds of the opponents, his rhetorical strategy focuses rather on the Galatians, and, therefore, it includes attempts to estrange them from the opponents. This naturally gives rise to a rhetorical strategy that is more aggressive towards the opponents. Lastly, one should also consider the possibility that the rhetorical strategy of the opponents included violent elements. Of course, it is very difficult to reconstruct the arguments of the opponents; even more so their rhetorical strategy. To achieve this, one needs to apply ―mirror reading‖ (J.M.G. Barclay, ―Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as Test Case‖, JSNT 31 (1987): 73-93), which is always a difficult endeavour. However, if one accepts Barclay‘s ―mirror reading‖ (Barclay, ―Mirror-Reading‖, 73-83), one may safely speculate that Paul‘s opponents might have been guilty of violent rhetoric themselves. For example, Barclay argues that they definitely questioned Paul‘s ability to be an apostle; that it is highly likely that they used their relationship with the Jerusalem church against Paul; and that they seem to have argued that Paul sometimes had his followers circumcised. All of these arguments are aggressive in nature.

A Violent Theology?

A second way of making sense of the violent aspects in Paul‘s letters is to interpret Paul exclusively in terms of these aspects, which is the approach followed by Gager and Gibson. In their contribution, ―Violent Acts and Violent Language in the Apostle Paul‖, they contrast their own interpretation to that of Hamerton-Kelly (Gager and Gibson, ―Violent Acts‖, 13-31). They differ from him in viewing Paul as not typically Jewish, but rather as eccentric, in particular, because he prefers violence. According to Gager and Gibson, Paul was fundamentally a violent person in his deeds, language and ideology. They offer three arguments to support this: firstly, the fact that Paul had persecuted followers of Jesus before his calling; secondly, the fact that Paul is the only person we know who devoted himself to the persecution of Jesus‘ followers – a fact that he himself viewed as extraordinary (see, for example, Gal. 1:14), and, thirdly, the occurrence of violent language and theology in Paul‘s letters (for example, Gal. 1:9 and 5:12). In support of the last of these, they point out Paul‘s preference for the crucifixion metaphor in describing the transformative process characterising believers (for example, Gal. 2:19). They conclude: ―But [the] real point here is that we need to consider the possibility that it was Paul‘s own personality, his own predilection for images and symbols of violence, in his own terms, his ‗excessive zeal‘, that led him to adopt and perhaps even to invent this violent Christology of the cross”. A more important objection, however, is the unbalanced way in which Paul is portrayed by Gager and Gibson.

He is characterised as purely a violent man, someone who had an eccentric and, for his time, a non-typical preoccupation with violence – ―a violent personality”. They never refer to what may be called Paul‘s ―other side‖, for instance, they fail to mention that in many instances in his letters he attempts to promote love and to avoid violence. Since this aspect is not considered by them at all, they end up with a one-sided picture of Paul.