7) Galatians 2:11-14
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Galatians 2:11-14, ESV Bible)
Thus far in the epistle to the Galatians, we have noted that Paul is arguing for his radical interpretation of the gospel as it applies to non-Jews. He has just finished telling us that he went to Jerusalem to discuss it with "the Pillars." He has happily reported that the apostolic authorities sided with him, and they did not even compel Titus to be circumcised. Until this point in the epistle, Paul has cited only anecdotal testimony because all of this took place prior to the Jerusalem Council's definitive legal ruling in Acts 15.
The Antioch Incident
In Galatians 2:11, Paul relates a second anecdote to buttress his contention that Gentiles need not keep the sign commandment of circumcision. This is the famous (or infamous) Antioch Incident, a conflict between Peter and Paul. The traditional Christian interpretation of this passage presupposes that Paul and the Jewish believers with him had given up Judaism and the practice of Torah. When Paul saw Peter waffling on this matter by practicing some aspects of Torah, such as returning to the Bible's dietary laws, he rebuked him for Judaizing-that is to say that Paul rebuked Peter for backsliding back to Torah and Judaism.
A Different Interpretation of the Peter/Paul Conflict
Magnus Zetterholm of the Centre for Theology and Religious Studies in Sweden offers a different perspective in his book Approaches to Paul:
Such a basic presupposition is far from self-evident-it is not at all certain that Paul's intention was that all Jews in the Jesus movement should stop observing the Torah. Furthermore, if the non-Jewish adherents of the Jesus movement were recruited from the group of non-Jews that already took part in the activities of the synagogue [i.e., God-Fearers], it is likely that they previously had adapted a Jewish lifestyle, especially with regard to food.
The problem in Antioch, then, was probably the degree of intimacy in social relations ... it probably did not affect the food they ate, but rather the ritual of community meals. Such matters as the seating at the table and how wine and food were handled may have indicated to some Jews (like James) who did not share Paul's ideology regarding the equal standing of the non-Jews before God that the Jewish identity of the community was threatened ... the delegation from James the circumcision faction that Peter feared-seems to have recommended that the status of the non-Jews should be altered. The reason for this may simply have been an effort to try to get the ethnic identity and the social intercourse to correspond. If Jews and non-Jews socialized as if they belonged to the same ethnic group, James's representatives may have thought it best to have the non-Jews turned into Jews, in spite of the earlier agreement from Jerusalem. This does not mean that James had changed his mind on the general principle that non-Jews could be saved without becoming Jews, only that he disagreed with Paul on the implications for social interaction resulting from this theology. According to James, non-Jews could very well be connected to the Jesus movement, but only if the distinction between Jew and non-Jew was manifest also in social relations.
Peter in Antioch
Peter came to Antioch, the city in which Paul and Barnabas ministered among the Jewish community in the midst of the Christianoi, the Jewish believers, and specifically among those God-fearing Gentile believers like Titus. Simon Peter came to see the work there because Antioch had become the number-two city, after Jerusalem, for Jewish believers, and the number-one city for Gentile believers. In Antioch, the believers were first called Christians. They probably had a synagogue or two, perhaps several, which were Messianic, i.e., Christianoi. The believers in Antioch, no doubt, requested Peter to come and tell his stories and to teach them the Master's teachings.
In Antioch, Peter discovered an amazing community of believers where, in the midst of the believing Jewish community, God-fearing Gentile believers (the disciples of Paul and Barnabas) mingled freely. They worshipped with the Jewish believers; they kept the Sabbath and the festivals along with the Jewish believers to the extent they were able; they fellowshipped with the Jewish believers; and they ate and drank with the Jewish believers at fellowship meals, at ritual meals, festival meals, and so forth--not as guests in the synagogue or second-class citizens, but as brothers and sisters in the Messiah.
Peter arrived in Antioch and saw this mix of Jewish and Gentile believers, and he had no objections. After all, it was through Peter that the revelation of the gospel for Gentiles had first come. It came, not through Paul, but through Peter when he had the vision of the sheet from heaven descending and a voice saying, "What God has made clean, let no man call unclean." Peter first crossed the line, tore down the metaphoric wall of partition, and went into a Gentile home. He was the first to preach the gospel to the God-fearing Gentile Cornelius and the God-Fearers in Caesarea. He saw them receive the Holy Spirit, and most importantly he ate and drank with them. The other apostles in Jerusalem expressed shock and dismay when they heard about Peter eating and drinking with Gentiles.
Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” (Acts 11:1-3, ESV Bible)
Eating with Gentiles
What's the problem with eating with uncircumcised men? Peter explained to Cornelius, the Roman centurion, in Acts 10 the following:
And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me.” (Acts 10:28-29, ESV Bible)
Was it unlawful? According to halachah (Jewish law) of the first century, Jews were not supposed to eat food, even kosher food, that had been prepared by a Gentile. The possibility, indeed the likelihood, that the food might be contaminated by idols or by other Gentile defilements, prevented Jews from eating Gentile food. The Gentiles themselves were also ritually contaminated by idolatry, almost certainly. A Roman centurion, for example, had no choice but to participate in the Roman cult functions of his legion. From a first-century Jewish perspective, a clear and distinct wall of separation should have been maintained between Gentiles and observant Jews. Prior to the vision of the sheet, Peter considered it unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile, even a God-fearing Gentile, and the rest of the apostles were shocked that Peter went to a Gentile home and, most surprising of all, ate with them.
Years later, Peter visited Antioch. He saw how much things had changed since those days. In Antioch, Jewish believers and God-fearing Gentile believers freely mingled, ate together, and fellowshipped. Peter did the same. He mingled and ate with the God-fearing Gentile believers until some more guests from Jerusalem arrived.
For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. (Galatians 2:12, ESV Bible)
Certain Men from James
Who were the certain men from James? Paul referred to them as "the circumcision party." By saying that they were certain men from James, Paul indicated that they were from the Evyonim, the Jerusalem community of Jewish believers.
The term "Evyonim" (or Ebionites) refers to an early Jewish Christian sect that existed during the early centuries of Christianity. The name "Evyonim" is derived from the Hebrew word "evyon," meaning "poor" or "poverty." This name might have been chosen to reflect their emphasis on voluntary poverty or to signify their spiritual humility.
The Ebionites held unique beliefs and practices that distinguished them from Gentiles. They adhered strictly to Jewish law and customs. This included observing the Sabbath, circumcision, and dietary laws.
The Ebionites are considered by many scholars as part of the early diversity within Christianity, representing a continuation of Jewish Christianity. They were eventually declared heretical by the mainstream Christian church as orthodoxy began to be established, and they gradually faded out of history. Their exact doctrines and the specifics of their practices are known mostly through the writings of their opponents, such as the early Church Fathers, which makes it difficult to have a complete understanding of their beliefs.
The certain men from James must have been important people. Perhaps they were apostles themselves-certainly representatives of James, the brother of the Master, the head over the believers.
Why they came to Antioch, we are not told, but we do know that on arrival, they expressed their disapproval about the free intermingling of Jewish and Gentile believers. Paul refers to them as "the circumcision party," indicating that they were convinced that Gentile believers should undergo conversion; not for salvation, but, as Zetterholm has suggested, these men were only trying to bring the Gentiles to the obvious next step. If the Gentile believers were fellowshipping, worshipping, and eating within Jewish space, they should go the full distance and become Jewish. If they chose not to do so, they should be set aside from the Jewish community- quarantined, so to speak- so that the distinction remained perfectly clear.
When Gentiles start doing Jewish things, it blurs those neat lines of distinction. Even within Messianic Jewish congregations today, this discussion appears to be ongoing.
Under their influence, Peter withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentile believers. Barnabas withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentile believers. The rest of the Jewish believers in Antioch followed suit. Paul saw where this was going. Paul saw that this could only result, ultimately, in two different faith communities, two different religions, and two different peoples: a Gentile ekklesia and a Jewish ekklesia, and he did not care for it.
He took a bold step; he even stepped out of line and rebuked Peter.
Halachah of the Gospel
Paul said:
But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel (Galatians 2:14, ESV Bible)
We could understand it as "their conduct was not in keeping with the halachah of the truth of the gospel." The word halachah refers to the legal interpretation of Torah, but it literally means "walk." To be out of step with the truth of the gospel is to be outside the correct halachah of the gospel.
The halachah of the truth of the gospel of which Paul spoke was his belief that Gentile believers are part of the covenant and the greater commonwealth of Israel. They were no longer "Gentile sinners" and pagans. This new status enabled Jewish and non-Jewish believers to mingle freely, fellowship freely, worship together, and most importantly, eat together. The matter had already been established after Peter saw the sheet from heaven and after the Cornelius incident. It was already an accepted halachic practice of the apostolic community, so this new policy of segregation and separation that the circumcision party introduced in Antioch ran contrary to the already-established halachic practice and norms of the believing community.
Judaizders
I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, llive like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Galatians 2:14, ESV Bible)
Paul rebuked Peter. That is to say, "If you, though you are Jewish, have been, up until now, freely mixing with the Gentile believers, eating with them, fellowshipping and worshipping with them, unlike the common Jewish standard, i.e., you have been living 'like a Gentile and not like a Jew," how then can you now force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
It does not mean that Peter was living as a Gentile in the sense of not keeping Torah, not keeping Sabbath, not keeping kosher, etc. It means that he was freely associating with the Gentiles and setting aside higher halachic concerns about food prepared by Gentiles and concerns about Gentile defilement. Consider the Young's Literal Translation on Galatians 2:14:
If thou, being a Jew, in the manner of the nations dost live, and not in the manner of the Jews, how the nations dost thou compel to Judaize?
This is the passage from which we have inherited the title "Judaizers." In its original context, it refers to the ambitions of the Circumcision Party, namely the conversion of the Gentile believers. The Circumcision Party among the early Jewish believers sought to bring the God-fearing Gentiles "under the law" in the same manner as Jewish believers by requiring them to undergo conversion. The word is used this way in the LXX of Esther 8:17 (The abbreviation "LXX" refers to the Septuagint, which is the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible):
And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them. (Esther 8:17, KJV)
And many of the Gentiles were circumcised, and Judaized [became Jews], for fear of the Jews. (Esther 8:17, LXX)
So Paul said to Peter: "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to Judaize, i.e., to become Jews?"
In later Christian use, the term Judaize came to mean "persuading Gentiles to live like Jews," that is, to keep the Sabbath in any measure, the Torah in any measure, attending synagogue or eating matzah at Passover, and so forth. The original context, however, and the goal of the Circumcision Party, was to compel the Gentile God-Fearers in Antioch to become Jewish. That is why this anecdote was relevant to the Galatians to whom Paul was writing. So Paul said, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile in regard to fellowshipping with Gentiles, and not like a Jew who separates from them, how then can you force the Gentiles to become Jews?"
Rebuilding What You Tore Down
Paul went on to expand upon the rebuke by providing a theological argument:
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. (Galatians 2:15-18, ESV Bible)
In other words:
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that [whether Jewish nor Gentile a person is not justified by works of the law [i.e., conversion, circumcision, etc.] but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we [the Jewish believers] also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law [conversion to being Jewish], because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners [by eating and fellowshipping with Gentiles], is Christ then a servant of sin? [In other words, does becoming a believer mean we forsake Torah? Is eating and fellowshipping with Gentiles really a sin against Torah?] Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. (Galatians 2:15-18)
That is to say to Peter, "If you of all people, Peter, rebuild a sharp division between Jew and Gentile by removing ourself from table fellowship with Gentiles, you are rebuilding the barrier that you originally tore down. If you refuse to eat and worship with them, you rebuild the barrier that you originally tore down. You yourself were the first of the apostles to tear that separation down. If now you are putting it back up, then you are admitting that you were wrong in the first place, and you are proving yourself to have been living in sin and transgression."
How did Peter receive this rebuke? How did he answer? We would like to hear the other side of this story. Ultimately, Paul was right, and ultimately Peter conceded. Several years later, at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, Peter offered an opinion, stating:
And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” (Acts 15:7-11, ESV Bible)
May God, who knows the heart, bear witness to us as well by giving us the Holy Spirit just as he did for them. And may he cleanse our hearts by faith so that we may serve him sincerely.
Referneces
This lesson was curated from teachings from First Fruits of Zion “Holy Epistle to the Galatians.”