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.