Bible Groups - Digests of Bible Commentaries

Paul's Letter to the Galatians - Chapter 2

Length of account of 2^nd visit to Jerusalem indicates its importance (cf Acts 15:6-12, written in the eighties). Probably about AD50, and 14 years after his conversion - or after his previous visit. Paul - writing about 55AD - again implies it is his project, after a revelation (from God), but was this directly to him or via the Antioch community? Was this - as Luke says - an official delegation sent by the Antioch church? "and" implies some connection between this revelation and the gospel he preached to the Gentiles. Why did he present his case to only 3 leaders (clear only 1 meeting)? Why might Paul think he has "run in vain"? What feature of his gospel is an issue after 14 years, even though he is certain of its truth? V 3 seems to answer: "but Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, even though he is a Greek = Gentile". Implies Titus is a test case for the status of the uncircumcised Gentile Christians. Paul is certain about the gospel's truth, but uncertain whether uncircumcised Christians will be accepted by the "pillars" of the Church in Jerusalem. Will Gentiles be accepted as God's "end-time" people through Christ? If not there are practical - not theological - consequences for Paul's mission - it undermines his Law-free mission to the Gentiles. We should bear in mind that in 1^stC AD culture honour - strengthened by challenge and response - is the primary social value, and the amount of all goods - including honour - are limited.
BACKGROUND: Table Fellowship
1 Assumes Barnabas & Titus known to the Galatians. (Paul ignores his visit reported by Luke (Acts 11:30) taking alms to the poor of Judea). Paul and Barnabas eating normal meals with Titus would immediately raise the Gentile issue, thus challenging the Jerusalem community.
2 Revelation perhaps implies decision by Antioch church, not by Paul alone (as his conversion was not his decision), but it makes clear he was not summoned by Jerusalem. For Paul the issue is not whether the gospel he has preached is true - he has no doubt about this - but whether the Gentile converts will be accepted by the Jerusalem church, and therefore that there is only one people of God which is unified by faith only in Messiah Jesus - else he has been wasting his time. What other reaction could he expect from laying his gospel before them? Rejection would imply Gentiles had to become Jews to belong to God's end-time people and Paul's Law-free Gentile mission would be undermined. Grammar does not support any meeting other than privately with the pillars.
3 Presumably Titus is present as a test case - the issue is circumcision. As Paul has 'won' his challenge, and even gains agreement of Peter &c, the 'circumcision party' would now be determined to respond, probably leading to the follow-up visits to Antioch and to Galatia.
4 Unclear whether these "false brothers" were spying in Syria/Cilicia, but seems more likely they were "slipped in" to the meeting - but who by? And where from? But may be an elaboration of an attempt to have Titus circumcised. Paul & Barnabas remained steadfast and resisted this "so that the truth of the gospel may remain for you" - at the time of the visit "you" must refer to all Gentiles, which now includes the Galatians. Contrast of freedom and bondage (to the Law) introduced - to become a major subject of this letter.
5 Paul did not yield, so preserving the truth of the gospel - ie its content, which excludes the Law & circumcision - for the Galatians and all Gentiles. (Some mss omit 'not', but this seems so inconsistent with the rest of this letter that widely believed to have been omitted by copyists).
6 The answer by the "pillars" of the Jerusalem church (Paul still does not say who they are until v 9) - and not by the "false believers" who may be the claimed authority of the troublemakers in Galatia - given is that nothing is to be added - ie circumcision and becoming a Jew are not necessary to being a Christian. Important for Paul to ensure Jerusalem cannot be quoted against him - his authority is from God. A very important decision, allowing the Church to expand throughout the Roman world - especially important after Jerusalem and the Jerusalem church fades away after AD70. Paul & Peter both judge by externals and their agreement implies God is on their side. God can judge a person's interior, but we cannot, so we cannot be any more sure than this.
7 A tacit division between Jewish Christian missions based on Jerusalem and those to the Gentiles and Jews in the Diaspora, based on Antioch. An easy boundary to state but to not to observe in practice: Paul preached to Jews in Cilicia, and Peter to Gentiles in & around Judea, so the boundaries quickly came under pressure - as when Peter went to Antioch.
8 Again emphasising that God works through both Peter and Paul, and the gospel from each is the same. Peter - here called Petros for the first time - sits beside Paul. Their functions are mission, each recognised as equals, hence unity between Jewish and Gentiles in the church, based on the identity of the gospel being preached. This unity is not to be achieved by compromise. But unity produces mutual commitment. (No hint of Peter & Cornelius - Acts 10-11).
9 And the decision is sealed by giving hands in fellowship (although not to Titus?). Reasons given by Paul are his understanding of God's actions: God's initiative in giving him the mission, entrusting him with the gospel, giving him success with the Gentiles, empowering him with grace. We are not told why the "pillars" were convinced. Even though Luke's account adds some food law requirements, it is clear that circumcision was not to be required (Gen 17:12, Cf Gen 15:6 & Hab 2:4) of Gentiles - a major change. God is not trapped in the past, but always pulls us towards greater freedom. Although Paul won major decisions from Jerusalem, he in effect admits that the approval of the Jerusalem church was somehow necessary to the effectiveness of his Gentile mission - even while continuing to insist that he authority comes not from humans but from God. Introducing the "false brothers" early, he leaves naming the "pillars" until the end, and asserts that "whatever sort of people they were makes no difference to me" (v 6). Does Paul protest too much?
John, son of Zebedee , added to Peter & James. Another interpretation holds that shaking hands was not used to seal agreements, but only when military victors offer their right hands to the vanquished to confirm a cessation of hostilities (Cf 1 & 2 Macc). Koinonia thus indicates future peace - ie acceptance of table fellowship with Gentile Christians - not to present agreement. Peter's subsequent visit can then be seen as a visible implementation of this agreement.
10 All that was added was to remember the poor - probably quite literally the poor of Jerusalem or Judea who had suffered in a famine (Tacitus) the same (c 48 AD) or previous year. And the Jewish Christians in Judea could no longer benefit from the pilgrimage business. (Cf 1 Cor 16:1, Rom 15:31). But there is a unity of all the local churches which represent in each place the one church that comes from the one gospel. Note that if this is the same meeting as in Acts 15,
11 Cephas at first mingled freely with all the Christians in Antioch - presumably including table fellowship (= Eucharist, cf 1 Cor 11:17-34), presumably including eating Gentile Christian houses. Assumed this incident is after that above.
12 At first Peter habitually shared fellowship meals with Gentile Christians - ie disregarding the Jewish dietary laws etc. "Drew back" implies a gradually changing pattern of behaviour, probably with separate Gentile and Jewish tables and separate food for each - not an acceptable pragmatic compromise for Paul. "Fearing the circumcision party" implies others as well as those from James - ie Christian Jews in Antioch. An intolerable split threatened: what qualifies a person as a member of God's people - faith or the Law? Barnabas & Peter were i9mplying that faith is not enough. Hence Paul confronts Peter publicly. But when some Judaisers came from Jerusalem, purporting to speak with James' authority, Peter began to withdraw from table fellowship.
13 Their actions now do not match the principles they said they accepted and practised on arrival. Even Barnabas, who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, was seduced. The problem of group pressures conflicting with beliefs and the effects actions have on others occurs again. Worse, even some local Jewish Christians and even Barnabas, followed suit. Paul feels forced to oppose Peter publicly.
14 Now Paul sees Peter behaving like the false brothers of v 4-5 as "threatening the truth of the gospel". If you are prepared to share table with Gentile Christians, why try to compel Gentile Christians to become Jews? Paul is showing the Galatians how firmly he stood up for the gospel he preached them, even to facing Peter. But he does not tell us here the outcome - Did Peter back down? - probably Paul would have said so to the Galatians if he did! The phrase 'I opposed him to his face' usually occurs in context of unsuccessful resistance, and the problem has now flared up again in Galatia. In effect, Peter is, in effect, demanding that Gentile Christians obey the Law, including circumcision, which is placing the Law ahead of the gospel. Paul is demanding that Jewish Christians join in table fellowship with Gentile Christians and therefore abandon major parts of the Jewish Law. Conforming to each group's norms doesn't work. Paul cannot accuse Peter of breaking his word because the Jerusalem agreement was not sealed by oaths - in this culture you can lie if you don't mean to honour it.
15 Generally believed that the narrative of the Antioch event ceases with v 14, and was not necessarily said to Peter. Paul now introduces his main argument, including the important concepts "be justified"= "righteousness", "believe", "faith of (not in) Christ". Briefly: the circumcision party were probably portraying circumcision and the Law as both the means of entering the people of God, and 'righteousness' as the fruit of entry. For Paul 'righteousness' is about staying in the people of God.
BACKGROUND:Righteousness as Privileged Identity; What is it? How is it obtained?
16 We Jewish Christians know that justification comes from faith in Christ, and not by keeping the Law, ie doing the Law needs faith too. Justification does not come from works of the Law, else Christ died for nothing. Gentiles are sinners by definition since they live outside the covenant with God, and hence are not constrained by God's Law. The "works of the Law" are practices required by the Law which make Abraham's descendants a distinctive people, set apart = holy, ie their identity markers: circumcision, Sabbath and dietary laws. The distinction is not about morality etc, it is about living Jewishly. But Deut does not teach that observance of the Law was what constitutes Israel as God's people, only that it is the people's grateful response to God's grace in making them his people. So Paul is not here denying something asserted by Jews, but perhaps exposing the logic of insisting on circumcision, etc: if you say circumcision is necessary for salvation you are saying the Law is necessary for salvation (as well as faith). "Being justified" means fulfilling obligations, but usually has the meaning of being justified by God = salvation, since we cannot hope to fulfill our obligations to God - ie implies God's mercy, and that God is righteous/justified for justifying or showing mercy to us. Cf margins being justified - made straight, in good order. The Lord alone "is just" (Sir 18:2, Ps 143:1-2). Human conduct cannot merit this justification, which is free gift = grace. It is through the possessive "faith of Christ" that we can be saved - but the possessive does not make it fully clear whether it is Christ's faith or believers' faith in Christ. Or both? Perhaps here the emphasis is on believers having Christ-like faith? Note however that our faith cannot justify - only God justifies (Cf Rom 3:20-28). Faith in Christ is not a complement to the Law, but an alternative. Those who are justified before God must be justified to each other - ie to all God' people.
17 If in dispensing with the Law we - both Christian and Jewish Christians - become "sinners" - ie Gentiles, does that make Christ and agent of sin? Certainly not (very emphatic), because the Law no longer defines "sinners".
18 One can only regard Christ a servant of sin if the Law remains the definer of sin, which Paul denies. If I put back the Law as defining sin, I prove myself a "sinner". "I" implies no longer held in common with Peter. Asserting that Torah observance is needed as well as faith would be a real infringement of God's will (sic - not the "Law") - making Paul a sinner.
19 Difficult verse. Christ died under the Law, but through his death the Law forfeited its power over the dead, ie the Law abolishes itself in the cross of Christ. Paul has died to the Law in the sense that it is no longer his authority. You cannot serve 2 masters, Christ & the Law. How did Paul die through the Law? Perhaps by persecuting Christians through fanatical adherence to the Law and so meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus. When he then died to the Law he came to live for God, a complete change of social identity.
20 This new life, however, is still a life in the flesh, not yet a heavenly life (But Cf John: our heavenly life has already started here on earth.) Literally: 'I live and yet not I but Christ lives in me'. It is Christ's activity in believers that justifies them. But we still live lives of flesh. Son of God is a special title = the one who carries out God's will. The righteous person is characterised by life & blessing (Prov 10-15).
21 To allow the Law to define sin and to arbitrate the relation of Jews and Gentiles in the Church would be to nullify God's grace, and hence to destroy the gospel he (Paul) preached. If the Law could justify us it would not have killed Christ, and Christ's death would not be needed. This inadequacy of the Law is shown precisely by Christ's death. If Torah observance is still needed, or even adequate, we do not need Christ, and Christ died for nothing. Paul here equate justification with the life of v 20 (Cf 3:11). 'Justification' can here mean living as God's people, as well as acceptance as one of God's people. Remaining within God's people is also based on faith, not on the Law. To insist on obeying the Law to gain righteousness - ie by our own works - is to reject the offer of grace - the free gift from God and insist on paying for it.
We do not have the arguments that might have been put forward by James &c (but cf Jas 2:14-26), but they should not be disregarded. The Jews had been a people set apart and given the Law by God, so why give it up at Paul's insistence? Not every Apostle agreed with Paul's interpretation at the time.