Galatians 2:11-21; Paul's Troubles and His Gospel

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently 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 compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’ 15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. 17 But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing."

Introduction

This passage is vintage Paul. In it he is fighting for his Apostolic life, clarifying his argument, accusing others of insincerity and, finally, ending with such brilliant and touching theological statements that it leaves the reader breathless. He begins the passage in the state of extreme conflict (opposing a fellow Apostle "to his face") and ends with what some scholars have called Paul's most endearing statement of "Christ mysticism"--'I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live..." How can a person traverse these immense spiritual and personal spaces in the compass of 11 verses? This and the next essay try to show how Paul does this by placing this controversy with Cephas (Simon Peter) in the context of Paul's developing Gospel and the central problem he faces as an Apostle. Let's begin with those themes, in the reverse order.

Paul's Central Problem in Galatians

We already know, from last week's exposition of Gal. 1, that Paul is embroiled in controversy as he pens Galatians. His message of "justification by faith" to the Gentiles, which really means that you don't have to become a Jew before becoming a Christian, was attacked unmercifully by some that he will call the "circumcision party"--i.e., those early Christians who claimed that you had to "become Jewish" (circumcised) before faith in Christ would "work" for you. But the bigger problem that he has in Galatians is a tension he faces in this passage. In a word, Paul wants to portray himself as the "independent Apostle," the Apostle to regions where no one else has (dared to?) go, the one who develops an independent Gospel to meet the needs of these far-off people. But, on the other hand, he needs to get approval of sorts from Jerusalem, the heart and hub of the Church, in order for his ministry to be "recognized." That is, he needs people to put the Church's "stamp of approval" on his work, lest it just be denounced as the independent and wild ravings of an outsider.

Paul, therefore, is in an intellectual and personal bind. On the one hand he would love nothing more than to be free from the people in Jerusalem, whose Gospel he thinks is outmoded and whom he personally can't stand. On the other hand, he needs their approval so that he can represent his Gospel as "legitimate" throughout the world. This explains his argument in 2:1-10, the passage just before our lesson for today. In that passage he recounts carefully his trips to Jerusalem while, at the same time, trying to distance himself from those he met while there. He will say that he indeed was there and met with the leaders of the Church (thus, he covers the legitimacy "base"). But he will also say things that can only be construed as wanting to distance himself from these very people (James and Simon Peter), such as "those leaders contributed nothing to me" (2:6). By the time he gets to 2:10 in his argument, then, Paul thinks he has successfully walked the tightrope of these two issues--he has declared his independence while also reluctantly admitting the recognition that he sought from "headquarters"--Jerusalem.

The Conflict Continues

Then Cephas (Simon Peter) decided to pay Paul a call at Antioch, where Paul had set up shop for a while, and all hell breaks loose. Antioch was both close enough to Jerusalem so that one could run down there for "approval" every once in a while but far enough to be outside of Jerusalem's immediate orbit and influence. Who knows why Simon Peter actually visited. I think he was probably sent as an emissary to "check up" on Paul, to see if he was really preaching a Gospel that was "consistent" with the Jerusalem Gospel or whether he had, when he was out of "earshot" of Jerusalem, decided to "go independent" again. This is the only way I can explain the vociferousness of Paul's attack on Cephas in 2:11. Paul, literally, was right in Peter's face because, as he rather uncharitably says, Peter was "condemned." That is strong language. The only other place where the verb translated "condemned" is used in the NT is in I John where the author is speaking about our hearts "condemning" us. In other ancient Greek literature the word is used to describe God's condeming of a person. Thus, it is as if Paul is saying that Peter is worthy of hell for something that he did to Paul. What could it be?

Here is what likely happened, according to Paul's account in Gal. 2. Peter came up to visit Paul at Antioch. We don't know the purpose of his visit, but we are probably on the right track to conclude that he was sent to "look after" Paul. After all, you don't want a loose-cannon Apostle just 100 miles from the main movement. When Peter arrived, he apparently had a harmonious time with Paul for a while. He even "agreed" with Paul, in Paul's mind, about the nature of the Gospel. That is, even Peter began to "live like a Gentile." Paul says this in 2:12--

"for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles."

Thus, Peter was becoming what Paul later said about himself, "I have become all things to all people..." (I Cor. 9:22; almost all scholars think I Cor was written after Galatians). Peter was "liberalizing." Indeed, Luke has the story of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10-11 which shows that God told Peter to become more liberal on the question of accepting Gentiles into the ministry of the Church. So, when Peter paid Paul a visit, he began to get into the "flow" of Paul's ministry, eat with Gentiles (i.e., he didn't keep ritual purity required of Jews) and see Gentiles as equal partners in the work of God's kingdom.

But then the problem arose. More people from Jerusalem paid a visit to Antioch. These people were sent from James (we don't know if there was really one Jerusalem Church with conservative and liberal tendencies in the church or whether there was more than one early Christian movement in Jerusalem at this time). Of course, they were the really conservative early Christians, those who would hold that Gentile males needed to be circumcised first in order to become Christians. Paul himself calls them the "circumcision faction" (2:13). These folk then put Peter in a bind. He had to make a decision whom to please--Paul or the emissaries from Jerusalem. So, what did he do? He wavered. Actually, he did the same thing that Paul had to do when Paul was confronted with securing Jerusalem approval. Paul had to trim his independent sails a bit when entering into Jerusalem's harbor. So, Peter trimmed his sails when the circumcision party's reps visited Antioch.

Thus, I am claiming that Paul is so mad at Peter here, using utterly over-the-top language, because Paul has caught Peter in the same hypocrisy which Paul himself was forced to perform. You are always madder at people who do the same bad things as you do--probably because you understand perfectly the pressures they are under, and it reminds you of the pressures to which you succumbed also.

Now we know why Paul is so livid at Peter in 2:11. The conservatives came from Jerusalem. Peter, who formerly acted like a "liberal" with Paul on the question of circumcision and table fellowship, "withdrew" for fear of the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem. This is what Paul is talking about when he says:

"for until ceratin people came from James, he used to eat with Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy" (2:12-13).

There is one thing a hypocrite can't stand--and that is other hypocrites. So, now we see why Paul is raging mad. Peter has drawn back. He is also taking others with him. Even Barnabas, Paul's # 1 assistant, has fallen under their pressure. Basically Paul is losing his ministry. He can't stand for that. He has to oppose them in the strongest way possible. Now we are ready to hear what Paul says to Cephas and the group from James.

Here is what Paul has to say--the content of his Gospel.

2700