Faith from the beginning - Lesson 6

Contrary to what some believers think, Paul was not given new information from God.  The revelation he was given only illuminated what already existed in scripture.  Paul quoted scripture from the Old Testament when presenting his argument.  In Acts 9:22 it is written, “Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.” Luke chose the word proving very intentionally.   The wording is such to explain that Paul was proving through evidence.  The only evidence available at that time was the TaNaKh (Old Testament).  Paul used evidence illuminated to him in the only scripture that existed.  It is important to remember this fundamental point when reading Paul’s letters.  It has been commonly mistaken that Paul created new theology, started a new religion, or abandoned the Old Testament.  This is false.  He clearly quoted and interpreted existing scripture to show where they had gone wrong and how to correct the mistakes they had made.  Paul preached the importance of faith before works not faith instead of works.  He fought against the same thing that Jesus did.  Men had adopted the idea that one could earn their way to righteousness and had added too many additional traditions and man made laws, treated them as equal to or more important than God's laws.  This is the very definition of legalism. 

If I had to guess, these are probably the same arguments, scriptures, and logic he used when presenting his vision and teaching to the beit din referred to in beginning of Galatians 2 and then again to the Jerusalem council in the Acts 15. 

·         v3:1 – bewitched and portrayed

o   Bewitched = deceived

§   “that you should not obey the truth” is the Greek but NIV, NASB, ESV, and many others remove this phrase (http://biblehub.com/text/galatians/3-1.htm).  NKJV and KJV includes it.

§  Although it does not change the overall meaning, subtly it almost seems as though it lessens the impact of Paul’s phrasing

o   “before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified”

§  The phrasing is confusing, but it seems he is simply reiterating that they have been taught, with proof through scripture, that Jesus is the Messiah.

§  Similar to Acts 9:22 that Paul was “proving Jesus was the Christ.”

·         v3:2 -5 – Back to the fundamental point

o   Romans 9:30-32 – Faith first was always the goal.

o   Similar to verse 2:16 – Paul’s broken record approach makes it obvious, to us and hopefully those reading, that faith has to come first.

o   v3:4 – suffer many things in vain.

§  Referring back to the culture, it was required in any Roman territory to be part of their god and idol worship daily.  Ray VanderLaan, in his study guide, In the Dust of the Rabbi explains the Roman/Greek culture in that day as a very religious culture.  Religious in the sense that each community had a central god, another god for the marketplace, and probably several idols in their temple to represent the different gods they believe for healing, harvest, farming, fertility, rain, sun, etc.  This polytheist (multiple god) religion was not optional for citizens.  You had to participate, or the other citizens feared you would anger the gods for ignoring them. 

§  Jewish citizens had immunity, under Roman authority, so long as the local synagogue would offer a sacrifice to the God of Abraham daily in the name of the village.  This kept the political peace and gave Jews freedom to worship their God. 

§  The problem for non-converted Gentiles (Godfearers) was without official Jewish status or recognition from the local synagogue; they more than likely struggled every day trying to avoid idol worship.  I’m sure they would have to justify they were worshiping with the Jews, but not converted to Jewish.

§  I believe that Paul is referencing this day to day suffering they go through.  The persecution of their day.  He is just reminding them, “Why did you go through that only to give in to those that are pressuring you, knowing it won’t help your salvation?”

·         v3:6-14 –Paul is providing the scriptural proof text for his argument that faith is the key.  This would have most likely been the same scriptural references he gave the beit din in Gal 2:2 and again probably to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.

o   In verse 6, Paul is quoting Genesis 15:6 “and he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.”

§  God provided an unconditional covenant with Abram.  Abram did not even participate in the covenant ritual, as God put him to sleep.  God promised the land and promised more descendants than stars in the sky.

§  There was no action required by Abram.  Only to have faith in God. 

§  It was at least 13 years later before the conditional covenant sign of circumcision was added.  (Gen 16:16 – Gen 17:1)

o   In verse 7 and 8 Paul is quoting from Genesis 12:3 “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” 

o   Both of the passages that Paul references are examples of God making a promise first, and asking for action second.  Not the other way around.

§  Abram had to trust God first, then “go from your country…” (Gen 12:1)

§  Abram had no children at an old age, yet believed God that he would, and that belief was counted as righteousness. (Gen 15:6)

o   v3:10 –Deut 27:26 or Deut 28:15.  To be justified by the law, one must obey all of the laws.

o   v3:11 – Habikuk 2:4

o   v3:12 – Paul wrote, “the law is not of faith” then quotes Leviticus 18:5

§  Obeying the law is an objective based on physical works

§  Faith is an objective based on the heart

o   v3:13 – Deuteronomy 21:22-23

§  Obviously, Paul is not saying that Jesus himself was cursed

§  Jesus took on the curse of our guilt even though he was innocent.

o   Another valuable verse that Paul did not use is Hosea 6:6 (not to put words in Paul’s mouth, but to recognize there are other lessons in the Old Testament that support his teaching.)

§  Hosea and his wife are supposed to be an analogy of God and His people

§  Hosea’s wife, like Israel, would be faithful, then leave, yet God directed Hosea to forgive her and be faithful to her, in the same way that God remains faithful to Israel.

§  Faith was always God’s intent.  Righteousness based on obedience was man’s way of creating a tangible objective.

It is imperative to keep in mind that Paul did not introduce new information.  Paul used Old Testament scripture as the foundation for his argument.  God gave the foundation from the very beginning that faith was key.  When evaluating Paul (or any apostolic writing) there is always a thread leading from the Old Testament (TaNaKh).  The apostles, and Jesus for that matter, did not have the New Testament, so all of their teaching was directly from the TaNaKh.  

Works of the law - continued

Anyone that has studied the bible probably has had those moments where after you think you are "done" with a passage, more thoughts come to mind, or a different perspective crosses your mind.  After my last post about works of the law, I just kept feeling like my thoughts were incomplete or that perhaps I was not fully grasping Paul's point.  I couldn't quite put a finger on that nagging feeling.  I prayed, contemplated, re-read the lesson about works of the law.  It took a few days, but this morning when I was starting a new lesson, it dawned on me.  

I heard a couple of concepts this week that prompted these additional thoughts.  I heard a pastor comment that he felt the term works of the law meant circumcision or the signs of God's covenant with Israel.  He felt that works of the law was Paul's way of saying "convert to Judaism."  This message was recorded several years ago, so I'm not sure if this still his opinion or not.  

In addition I also watched a video by Ray Vanderlaan.  He was leading a biblical history hike to illustrated the story of Exodus when Moses lead some out of Egypt.  The resounding message I heard is that faith had to come first.  The people had to have faith to follow God.  God tested that faith by having them take action.  This does not mean that action, or works, is what God is seeking.  God used action to test faith.  I don't believe this is any different today.

As I referred to earlier, the phrase works of the law is considered by some to be used in the same way as circumcision.  The term circumcision is usually used as shorthand to mean legally and physically convert to Judaism.  While I agree that the term circumcision is used as shorthand in this way, I’m not convinced this is what Paul means every time he uses the term works of the law, under the law, law, works, etc.  My argument is fairly simple.  Paul never taught to not obey the Torah (law).  For that matter he specifically said not to throw out the law (Rom 3:31), and that the law is not contrary to God’s promise (Gal 3:21).  So if Paul does not teach against the Torah, then why would he use such harsh language against circumcision?  If one reads all of the laws written in the Torah closely, there are provisions for non-Jews, sojourners that live among the Jews.  That is a different study all together.  The essential foundation for understanding these commandments is that it was a provisional covenant between God and the people with Moses.  God part of the covenant was that He would be their God, they would be His chosen people, He would protect them, and He would provide them land (severely paraphrased).  The people’s part of the covenant was to obey. 

This is not intended to be a massive fork into another study.  This is intended just to point out where my interpretation is coming from.  Paul made it clear had no intentions of teaching against this.  He proved it in Acts when taking the vow under James’ instruction. 

There are very specific provisions within the Torah for non-Jews (sojourners). 

Here are just three examples:

o   “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.  You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the  Lord  your God.” (Leviticus 19:33-34)

o   “And if a stranger is sojourning with you, or anyone is living permanently among you, and he wishes to offer a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the  Lord , he shall do as you do.  For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the  Lord .  One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.” (Numbers 15:14-16)

o   “Therefore keep the words of this covenant and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do.    “You are standing today all of you before the  Lord  your God: the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel,  your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water,  so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the  Lord  your God, which the  Lord  your God is making with you today,  that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.  It is not with you alone that I am making this sworn covenant,  but with whoever is standing here with us today before the  Lord  our God, and with whoever is not here with us today.”  (Deuteronomy 29:9-15)

My point is, I believe Paul is simply saying two things. 

1)      When he writes “works of the law”, as translated into traditions of the elders that has been turned into law are not the same as God’s commands.

2)      Faith must come before obedience to the commands of the covenant.  Abraham showed faith first.  Moses showed faith first.  The Hebrews that left Egypt showed faith first.   Obedience to the Torah (law or commands) follows faith.  (Same message from James)

I believe Paul is NOT saying

1)      Circumcision or following the Torah (law) is wrong

2)      Gentiles cannot follow the Torah (law).

I will end by reminding any readers, and myself, that I am learning and these are just my thoughts, based on how I feel I have been lead through the scripture and other supporting information, such as the Dead Sea Scroll document that used the term works of the law.  I pray that God provides me with wisdom and humility.  Wisdom to understand God's scriptures.  Humility to always remember that it is not on my own that I learn, and humility to be willing to admit if I am wrong.  

Works of the law - Lesson 5

The most common interpretation of Paul’s term “law” has been “Old Testament commandments.”  Likewise, terms such as, “works of the law,” “under the law,” and “works” fell into the same category.  As I really studied Galatians, which lead me to read several of Paul’s writings on a deeper level, I became very confused when using this interpretation.  Translating the word law this way just seemed create contradictions within Paul’s own writing.  Paul was a proud Jewish Pharisee and scholar (Acts 23:6, Gal 1:14, Acts 22:3).  It just wasn’t making sense that Paul would write in this letter, and in letters written after this, about his background, being zealous for God, even using phrases supporting the law (Gal 3:21, Rom 7:12, Rom 7:22, Rom 3:31).  He even went so far as to prove, through a purification ceremony in Acts 21:20-26, that he had not abandoned the law.  In Romans 3:31, he specifically makes the point to not throw the law away because of faith.

Paul does not use the terms “works of the law,” “works,” or “under the law” as positive phrases.  The more I read these examples of Paul’s life and his teaching, the more it didn’t make sense when I read terms that appeared to be against the law.  I knew scripture would not contradict itself, so I know there’s an explanation.

In my search, I found that the Greek word nomou was used for different purposes, very much like the translation of the base word for Jew in Galatians 2:14.  Nomou translates directly into English as law.  The problem with that translation, at times, is without understanding the cultural relationship to this word, we think of the word law as a very concrete and flat term.   Imagine using the word law to describe the legal code, washing your hands before eating dinner, holding the door for someone behind you, or always having mom’s pecan pie at Thanksgiving dinner.  One is law, another is hygiene, one courtesy, and another is tradition.  The problem is that some Jewish hygiene, courtesy, and traditions had been considered as important as law, and at times even enforced as such, even though it was not actually law.  So when writing, the word nomou (law) was used to convey this sentiment in the culture at that time.

Once again, in order to understand the point Paul is making, it is imperative to understand the cultural relevance of Jewish living at that time.  Matthew 15:3 and Mark 7:8-9 tell the story of Jesus rebuking certain Pharisees for holding stronger to traditions than God’s written scripture.  We also know that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees when questioning him about picking grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28) and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6).  The relevance of these passages is exactly the same point that Paul is making.  Traditions had become synonymous or even superseded the scriptural commands.  Tradition had become law.  These traditions had become the yoke of burden that was impossible to bear.  Paul is speaking against this form of law.

In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus said, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach but do not practice.”  Notice that Jesus specifically affirmed to the crowd to “do and observe whatever they tell you.”  Teaching and being a leader within the synagogue, like Jesus is talking about, required reading directly from the scrolls of Moses, which is what Jesus is telling the crowd to obey.  What he didn’t agree with was the “works they do.” Jesus was teaching the crowd not to follow “the works they do” in the exact same manner that Paul wrote that “a person is not justified by works of the law.”  These two phrases are pointing towards the same teaching.  Pharisaic teaching at that time was to adhere to the “traditions of the elders” (Matthew 15:2) with as much obedience, or more, as one would obey God’s commandments. 

In the last several years, a lot of research and study has been done connecting Paul’s use of the term “works of the law” to a Dead Sea Scroll (MMT) that uses the same phrase in Hebrew, ma-ase ha-Torah.   Martin Abegg, professor of religious studies and co-director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia, Canada, expands on the language used within this particular scroll in The Biblical Archeological Society book entitled, “Paul: Jewish Law and Early Christianity.”   (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/free-ebooks/paul-jewish-law-and-early-christianity/)

·         Hebrew: ma-ase ha-Torah

·         Hebrew to English: precepts of Torah

·         Hebrew to Greek: erga nomou

·         Greek to English: works of [the] law

Abegg explains that the primary teaching within this particular scroll is the understanding of purity laws and the requirement for separating what is pure and not pure.  Abegg explained that the “MMT claims that adherence to the works of the law will be accounted to you as righteousness.”   Abegg further explains that this is the exact theology that Paul was preaching against. 

This segregation law was manmade, potentially under a healthy concern that by associating with Gentiles, whom did not adhere to the laws pertaining to purity, let alone even understand these laws, one would be at risk of touching or consuming something unclean.  Initially due to a legitimate concern or not, the custom or tradition had become equivalent to Jewish law.  Peter speaks of this law in Acts 10:28, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation…”

Paul expresses this argument, not only in Romans 3:21-31, but also in Ephesians 2:14-16, “For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility  by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,  and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.”  These ordinances are the traditions of the elders written into law.

When Paul makes reference to these works of the law, he is doing so in the context of being justified or not.  Paul was directly opposing the theology that these works justified a person or made them righteous.  On this particular point, Paul was using the exact same logic and referencing the same theology that Jesus used when rebuking some of the Pharisees for holding stronger to traditions of man rather than God’s scripture.

It seems that Paul uses the word law for two different purposes.  As explained above, he uses the law to convey the intent that the traditions had become as important as law.  He also uses the word law to reference the laws of Moses (Torah), which he is a strong supporter.  Gal 3:21, Rom 7:12, Rom 7:22, Rom 3:31, Acts 21:20-26

Scripture will not contradict itself.  It is critical to read an entire context of Paul’s writing, and the cultural context of that writing, to understand what he means when he is using the word law.  Depending on the context of the message, law could be translated as traditions of the elders or teachings from Moses (Torah). 

Paul's Opening Argument - Lesson 4

Galatians 2:11-21 

Typically this is referred to as "The Antioch Incident" or "Paul Rebukes Peter."  While this story is about Paul correcting Peter, it is much more than that.  He is telling a story, to be used as an example and to lay a foundation for a much larger argument that he will use repeatedly in his letters.

During the first several verses of chapter 2, Paul writes that he submitted his teaching to the authoritative beit din or Peter, James, and John.  He points out at the end of verse 6 that the beit din “added nothing” to his teaching, giving Paul their blessing to continue teaching.

In the next passage, Paul tells a story to further support the point that he is making to the readers of his letter.  The custom of telling stories, supporting a theology was very common.  This is how precedent was set regarding scripture interpretation.  These stories were often used as testimony when presenting information to a beit din or the Sanhedrin, much like an attorney provides statements, reads from previous legal rulings, or uses witnesses.   This story is essentially Paul’s opening argument providing a real world example to the assembly reading his letter.

The timing of this story isn’t clear, and probably inconsequential.  However, in an effort to provide as complete of a picture as possible into the surrounding events, it doesn’t hurt to make an attempt to place the timing of the events.  In a previous lesson I connected Galatians 2:2 and Acts 11:27-30. The timing of Paul’s confrontation with Peter, most likely correlates to Paul and Barnabas being in Antioch at the end of Acts 12 and beginning of Acts 13, but most certainly before the Jerusalem council event of Acts 15.  There is mention at the end of Acts 14 and beginning of Acts 15 that some men came from Judea teaching that circumcision was required, at which time Paul went to Jerusalem to discuss the controversy with the Jerusalem council, however, there is no mention of Peter being present, unlike in Acts 12-13. 

Paul wrote in Galatians 2:12 that some men were sent from James and at the end of the same verse pointed that Peter feared the circumcision party.  Assuming that my timeline is accurate, this would have to be James, brother of Jesus because the brother of John was killed at the beginning of Acts 12.  This assumption provides further evidence that this event and the writing of the letter to the Galatians occurred before the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.  James, brother of Jesus, announced the decision that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised.  Obviously, after being presented with testimony from Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, including scriptural references, James reverses his formal position regarding circumcision.  Had the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 been the event that Paul was referring to in Galatians chapter 2:2, then why would James have sent people from the circumcision party to investigate Peter’s behavior in Antioch?

Different translations place the quotation marks in different places.  Some claim that only verse 11 is a quote from Paul to Peter.  Other versions use quotations around verse 11 through 16, and yet others place the quotes all the way through verse 21.  I find that by reading the entire passage, Paul is referring to his conversation with Peter until the end of verse 21, when he clearly begins addressing the Galatians again in Chapter 3.  In v2:15, 16, and 17, Paul continues to use the pronouns we and our when making a point about being a Jew.  Paul must be speaking to Peter, a fellow Jew.  Otherwise, if he was addressing the Galatians, he would not be speaking to them as though they were Jews also.  The Greek text did not have quotations, so it is up to the translator (or reader) to determine the best option. 

·         v2:11-13 - Paul is pointing out the behavior of Peter, leading Barnabas and other Jews to act hypocritically. 

o   “eating with the Gentiles” v12 is not written as a sin in the scripture, however, according to Jewish law (traditions), it was not allowed.  The possibility that the food being eaten could be unclean, or that the person preparing the food could be unclean was too high of a risk for them, so they adopted the custom of forbidding Jews eating or even associating with Gentiles.

§  Paul points out in v14 that this is not part of the truth of the gospel (not written in scripture).

§  Acts 10:28 “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation”

o   This law was out of cultural necessity for the Jews.  In Leviticus 11 God provided a very specific set of guidelines to establish what was acceptable to eat and what was not (clean or unclean).  He even provided instructions just in case someone came in contact with unclean food, how to become clean again.  Jews took this very seriously and went to full lengths, as much as possible to follow these guidelines. 

o   A typical Gentile would have no understanding of the instructions in the Torah for clean or unclean food.  They did not read and study the Torah or the oral traditions (Talmud) as the Jews did, daily.  The probability was high that by Torah standards, a Gentile was unclean, therefore the food and the way the food was prepared was also unclean. 

·         v14 – Paul almost seems to use a circular reference.  Here are a few different translations of the same verse.

o    “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (ESV)

o   “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” (NIV)

o   “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” (NKJV)

o   “Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions?” (NLT)

o   The base word “Jew” is used 3 times to explain 2 different meanings. (http://biblehub.com/text/galatians/2-14.htm)

§  The first use of the word Jew (Ioudaios) is clear and precise.  Paul is using the word in such a way to describe Peter’s nationality. 

§  The second instance of the word Jew or Jewish (Ioudaikos) is a form of the word to describe the culture or style that one lives.  Notice in the NKJV the translation reads “in the manner” and in the NLT the translators wrote “have discarded the Jewish laws” in an attempt to capture the point.  We see by the context of the passage, he is referring in the previous verse to eating and associating with Gentiles, which is not a scriptural commandment, but a Jewish tradition.

§  The third instance of the base word Jew or Jewish (Ioudaizein), like the second instance, is a way to explain the customs or manner in which Jews live.  This word from the Greek is also commonly used as the word Judaize.  Judaize is a verb meaning the act of converting to Judaism.

o   The Jewish custom that Paul is referring to is the custom of not eating or associating with Gentiles, which was actually a Jewish law, but not a law or instruction written in scripture.  Peter also refers to this law in Acts 10:28 when visiting Cornelius, a Gentile.

o   Peter was teaching at the synagogue in Antioch, which had an assembly comprised of Jews, proselytes (Jewish converts), and Gentile believers (non-converts aka Godfearers). This assembly was obviously worshiping together, eating together and probably even friends with each other.  It sounds like some members of the circumcision party, sent by James, brother of Jesus, were visiting.  When these men visited, Peter must have been intimidated and possibly was worried about retribution because he was not following the Jewish law of segregation. 

o   In Romans 3:29, Paul emphasizes that there is one God for all.  He also wrote about this in Ephesians 2:14-16, “For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,  and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.” referring to bringing Jews and Gentiles together to worship.”

o   Taking these differences from the original Greek word into consideration, I think blending the above English translations could give us a better picture of what Paul was trying to say.  If you are Jewish by birth, but have set aside traditional Jewish customs while living amongst and ministering to the Gentiles, how can you expect the Gentiles to start practicing Jewish traditions?

·         v15-16 – All people are justified by the same standard

o   Paul uses the identical argument in Romans 3:21-31

o   Jew or Gentile – Both or Neither?

§  Paul used very specific language to Peter, “Jewish by birth”

§  By v16, Paul, very intentionally, said “a person is not justified” which seems minor, but is very significant that Paul is essentially lumping Jews in with the Gentile sinners

§  Paul is reminding Peter that neither Jew nor Gentile, are justified by works of the law

§  He also says the converse that both are justified through faith in Christ

o   Consider the word justified (some versions say counted righteous) as, “not held legally responsible.” 

§  Being given a warning ticket for speeding does not mean you are not guilty.  It just means not having to pay the consequence for breaking the law. 

§  Being justified does not mean one is not guilty of sin, it only means that we will be forgiven and not be given eternal consequence during judgment.

o   Both passages (Romans and Galatians) are making the point that God is the same God for Jews and Gentiles and that He saves both by faith. 

·         v17 – This verse seems very similar to the argument he uses in Romans 6:15 and 3:31

o   It seems that Paul is asking a rhetorical question.  I believe he is making a point to Peter here by asking, if we admit we are saved though faith, but we still make mistakes and sin, does that mean Christ promotes sin, so we should go back to the old works of the law?

o   It seems Paul’s point to Peter is that they don’t go backwards, looking for justification or righteousness through the old method of works.

·         v18 – “rebuild what I tore down” Paul is talking about his and Peter’s efforts over almost 20 years to break down the mentality that salvation is only for the Jews. 

o   If he, Peter, or any other leader, begin acting in such a way as to differentiate between Jewish believers and Gentile believers, he is only rebuilding the symbolic wall between the two.  

o   Ephesians 2:14-15 references the same “wall of hostility” – (which in some synagogues had become a physical wall of separation.)

o   Paul is pointing out the obvious to Peter.  Peter was the first to have a vision from God that Gentiles can be saved, and to not call Gentiles common or unclean.  Why would Peter, after defending his actions with Cornelious, go back to segregation?

o   Paul is probably not only speaking about the segregation law, but the entire concept that seeking righteousness through the law. 

·         v19-20 – “through the law I died to the law so that I might live to God” – Say what?

o   The very act of trying to find righteousness in the law proves that one is not righteous.  “Through the law I died to the law.”

o   He had to let go of his human desire (put to death – crucify).  Symbolically he is saying, Christ took those human desires with him during his crucifixion.

·         v21 summarizes his whole point - If righteousness is earned through the law, then the Messiah died for no reason.   

Remember that this is Paul speaking to Peter.  He is retelling the story of his encounter with Peter as a way to build up to his own point and argument with the Galatians, and specifically the part of the assembly that is contradicting his teaching and confusing the message.  Paul is going to follow through, beginning in Chapter 3, by further teaching his point directly to the assembly in Galatia.

This passage is commonly referred to as “The Antioch Incident.”  In researching and reading commentary, I found it to be the topic of many arguments.  Many disagree on Paul’s point.  Some believe that Paul is claiming he told Peter to abandon Judaism.  Some believe that Paul is showing off, in a sense, and putting Peter in his place by rebuking him publically.  Many believe that this is the first stance Paul took to prove his point that as Christ followers, Jews must abandon the whole idea of Judaism, including following the Torah, and all that is needed is faith.  I don’t think it’s any of these. 

First, aside from the meaning of Paul’s confrontation with Peter, remember that for Jews, even today, it is common, and even encouraged, arguing about scripture.  This is normal, and considered every day practice.  This is how Jews gain knowledge and wisdom.  I have heard, it is not uncommon to see two Jewish men, even today, in a synagogue having a heated argument over how to interpret a passage of scripture.  Those two men can argue, even come to no agreement, and leave the synagogue and have a meal together as friends.  Consider the Sadducees and Pharisees.  They had heated arguments, but still worked together.  One is even recorded in Acts 23. 

As I have shown, Paul shows many examples throughout his letters that he still claims his Jewish heritage.  Towards the end of his life, approximately 30 years after becoming a believer, he still claims “I am a Pharisee.”  He doesn’t say he was.  He writes a handful of times not to abandon the law.  The confusion is that Paul uses the word law in two different ways.  On the one hand, he is referring to the laws of Moses.  On the other, he is referring to the traditions of the elders, which were enforces as much as or more than God’s laws.  Most commentary I have read interprets Paul’s use of the word law with one meaning, referring to the laws of Moses.  In the next lesson I’m going to expand on this idea and hopefully lay to rest this confusion.  Without having a clear understanding of what Paul is really saying, all of his writings are taking out of context and have a completely different meaning.