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)
§
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.
