|
|
The Apostle Paul's Epistle
to the Galatians |
|
Chapter 2
|
1Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to
Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2It was because of
a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel
which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those
who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had
run, in vain.
It
would seem that since it took fourteen years for Paul to meet with
the Jerusalem leadership, that Paul was confident in his message
that Gentiles were to legitimately be a part of Israel without
becoming proselytes. As we've noted earlier, Paul wanted to maintain
that his message of Good News was genuine and didn't need to be
approved by man, but at the same time he didn't want to be in
opposition to the other Apostles. Perhaps what finally prompted his
journey to Jerusalem was the desire to resolve the issue once and
for all. He says "it was because of a revelation" that he went to
Jerusalem to present the Good News he had been proclaiming among the
Gentiles. This could simply mean that he went because he felt he
needed to, not because someone forced him to.
The Good News he proclaimed among the Gentiles was that Gentiles,
through faith in the Messiah, can be a part of Israel without
becoming legally Jewish. To a certain degree, the success of his
message depended on the believing Jewish community agreeing with
this message. It's not that Paul questioned the legitimacy or the
truth of his message; it's that without the other believing
communities accepting Gentiles as Gentiles, Paul would have been
"running in vain." The Gentile Believers would be ostracized and
have nowhere to go in terms of learning the Scriptures, worshipping
God and keeping the other communal aspects of Torah.
3But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was
compelled to be circumcised.
It's possible that Paul brought Titus to Jerusalem with him as a
kind of "test case" to see how the Jerusalem leadership would react
to having a Gentile among them. Their response to Paul's Good News
was that they did not compel Titus (a Greek) to be circumcised; that
is, become a proselyte to obtain legal Jewish status. In other
words, the Jerusalem leadership agreed that Gentiles did not need to
become legally Jewish in order to be reckoned a part of God's
people, Israel. This instance gives support to our assumption, that
the context we have been presuming while studying this epistle is
correct. It wasn't that the Influencers were trying to get Gentiles
to keep Torah to be saved; it was that they were trying to get them
"circumcised" to be saved. The term "circumcision" is used
throughout the book of Acts and Paul's epistles as a shorthand term
referring to legal Jewish status. (It's used to refer to both a
group of people and a status.) When it's used in its verb form (like
in this verse) it means "to go through the ritual of conversion to
obtain legal Jewish status."
4But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in,
who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Messiah
Yeshua, in order to bring us into bondage. 5But we did not yield in
subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel
would remain with you.
Now Paul gives us further insight into why he met with the Jerusalem
leadership. Again, it's not that he didn't trust his message but he
wanted to make sure the Gentiles he was teaching would be accepted
by the larger Believing community. He says it was because people who
were Believers in appearance only had disturbed the Gentile
Believers with the notion that they weren't truly saved because they
hadn't become proselytes. This was distorting the truth of the
Gospel that Jews and Gentiles are equal in the Messiah. The liberty
that Paul is referring to is the fact that, through Messiah, both
Jews and Gentiles are redeemed and are granted legitimate status in
Israel. The Gentile Believers were still saved even though they did
not meet the requirements set forth by the larger Jewish community
(they hadn't become proselytes). That’s what the liberty is –
liberty from man-made requirements to be a part of Israel.
The bondage referred to here would be putting Gentiles "back" into a
position of being outside of the covenants (outside of Israel).
Obviously, this was not actually possible (once God saves you,
you're saved), but in the eyes of the established Jewish community
(which included Jewish Believers), the Gentiles would be excluded.
In other words, Paul is saying is that if they submitted to the
doctrine of these "false brothers," that Gentiles can't be saved as
Gentiles, then as a result, at least to the community, Gentiles
would not be welcomed and therefore the truth of the Good News (that
Jews and Gentiles are equals) would not be upheld.
6But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes
no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--well, those who were
of reputation contributed nothing to me. 7But on the contrary,
seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the
uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8(for He
who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the
circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9and
recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas
and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas
the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles
and they to the circumcised. 10They only asked us to remember the
poor--the very thing I also was eager to do.
It's unclear whether he's referring to the apostles (like James,
Peter and John) or other leaders when he says that those of "high
reputation" added nothing to him. Regardless of whom he's referring
to, his point is that they didn't add anything to his message (in
terms of truth or authority). In other words, his confidence in his
message was well-founded because, ultimately, the Jerusalem
leadership (the Apostles) accepted the fact that Gentiles are a part
of Israel by faith alone. Additionally, he reaffirms his mission to
non-Jews and reiterates that just as God was working through Peter
among the Jews, God was working in Paul among the Gentiles; this was
made evident by the fact that God was changing people. The Jerusalem
leadership had to concede that God was changing the lives of
Gentiles without them changing their legal status; them being
proselytes would not have added anything to the work that the Spirit
had already done in them (they "saw" that he had been entrusted to
proclaim the Good News among Gentiles). As a result, they fully
accepted Paul and Barnabas. Everyone was happy to continue in what
they were doing; the Jerusalem leadership would continue to minister
among the established Jewish community, whereas Paul would minister
among the Gentiles. That's not to say that Peter and the Jerusalem
leadership would never encounter Gentiles, or that Paul's
communities weren't connected to the established Jewish community,
but it is to say that Peter and the Jerusalem leadership would be
concerned with the communities in the Land of Israel, while Paul
would be concerned with the communities outside of Israel. This is
confirmed by the fact that they asked him to remember the poor (that
is, the poor in Jerusalem). We see that throughout his epistles that
Paul mentions bringing money to Jerusalem for the poor (Romans
15:22, 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 Corinthians 8:14, 11:13).
11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face,
because he stood condemned. 12For prior to the coming of certain men
from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he
began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the
circumcision.
Apparently, Peter, at some point, came to
Antioch, acted hypocritically and Paul
confronted him about it. At first, Peter ate
with Gentiles, meaning he considered them
equals. In the context of first century Jewish
culture, to eat with someone meant that you
accepted them as a fellow member of God's
covenants. Therefore, in an extreme sense,
eating with a Gentile was likened to eating with
a sinner (because Gentiles were not Jews and
were therefore considered outside of God's
covenants). |
|
|
An honest reading of the relevant
rabbinic literature indicates that the main fear of eating with
Gentiles is the possibility of participating in idol worship.
Firstly, it's obvious that no Torah-observant Jew would eat
non-kosher meat (like pork); therefore the issue has to do with
ritual purity and not wanting to participate in idol worship. For
example, if a Jewish person was invited to a public occasion hosted
by Gentiles, the fear would be that the meat served (though kosher)
would have been slaughtered as a part of a sacrifice to an idol.
Additionally, drinking wine made by Gentiles was feared because it
could have been used as part of a libation ceremony to an idol. As
result of these fears, two positions were generally taken: 1)
cautiously eat with Gentiles, avoiding anything that may have been
offered to idols, or 2) avoid eating with Gentiles altogether. (As a
side-note, read Romans 14 with this context in mind and you
will see how Paul deals with these two perspectives and which
perspective he took.)
Though Peter had been eating with Gentiles, when some from James'
camp arrived in Antioch, he, apparently out of fear of how they
would react, separated himself from Gentiles. Paul, then, confronts
him in front of everyone.
13The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result
that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14But when I
saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the
gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a
Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that
you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
The other Jewish Believers from Antioch also began to dissociate
themselves from the Gentiles. It even got to the point that
Barnabas, even though he was Paul's partner, started to act this
way. Paul saw that none of them were standing up for the truth that
Messiah makes us all equal ("the truth of the gospel") and publicly
confronted Peter. Paul accused Peter of living like a Gentile and
yet compelling Gentiles to live like Jews. In other words, Peter
himself was not following the "rules" about what separates Jews from
Gentiles (because he was eating with them) and now he was compelling
Gentiles to follow these same "rules" by becoming proselytes.
Additionally, there is nothing in this text that indicates that
anyone was eating anything non-kosher (as most Christian
commentators assume). To assume this is to disregard the context of
the epistle and the extant data from rabbinic literature about table
fellowship with Gentiles.
15"We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the
Gentiles; 16nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the
works of law but through faith in Messiah Yeshua, even we have
believed in Messiah Yeshua, so that we may be justified by faith in
Messiah and not by the works of law; since by the works of law no
flesh will be justified.
The phrase "we are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the
Gentiles" was not actually Paul's viewpoint; instead, he was
repeating the commonly-held belief of the day. (Please note that
this is not how it is represented in some of the thought-for-thought
translations such as the NIV.) This is yet another indication that
we are studying this letter with the right context in mind: the
Influencers believed being Jewish granted you legitimate status in
God's covenant people, while being a Gentile made you an outsider to
God's covenants (a "sinner"). Paul immediately refutes this idea by
stating that no one is justified by "works of law." This is our
first encounter with the word "law" (the Greek word "nomos"). As
noted in the introduction, we will not automatically assume that
when Paul uses the word "law" that he's referring to the Torah of
Moses. Context and extra-biblical sources must be factored in to
determine Paul's use of the word. In this case, we have the phrase
"works of law."
Firstly, in the Greek, the word "law" does not have the definite
article "the." This is our first indication that Paul is not
referring to the Torah. Additionally, and perhaps most pertinent in
determining the meaning of this phrase, we have evidence from the
Dead Sea Scrolls that this phrase refers to something
different. Here is the section of the Dead Sea Scrolls that has the
phrase “works of law:”
Meanwhile, the wicked will increase in wick[ed]ness and . . .
(26) Remember the kings of Israe[l], and understand their works.
Whoever of them (27) feared [the L]aw was saved from sufferings;
when they so[ug]ht the Law, (28) [then] their sins [were forgiven]
them. Remember David. He was a man of pious works, and he, also,
(29) was [sa]ved from many sufferings and forgiven. And finally, we
(earlier) wrote you about (30) some of the works of the Law, which
we reckoned for your own Good and for that of your people, for
we see (31) that you possess discernment and Knowledge of the Torah.
Consider all these things, and beseech Him to grant you (32) proper
counsel, and to keep you far from evil thoughts and the counsel of
Belial.
(33) Then you will rejoice at the End Time, when you find
some of our words were true. Thus, 'It will be reckoned to you as
Righteousness', your having done what is Upright and Good before
Him, for your own Good and for that of Israel. (4QMMT of the Dead
Sea Scrolls)
What can we discern from this? Apparently, "works of law"
referred to a list of things that the Qumran community expected the
recipients of this letter to adhere to, so that they may be reckoned
righteous. If we apply the same meaning to Paul and his use of this
phrase (but within his context), then "works of law" in Galatians
refers to the rituals that were expected to be performed in order to
obtain legal Jewish status (that is, the conversion ritual).
Essentially, these verses encapsulate Paul's whole message to the
Galatians. Paul is refuting the theology of the day by bluntly
stating that no one is saved by meeting a list of requirements but
only through faith in the Messiah. And, just to be clear, he says
that even those who are clearly recognized to have legal Jewish
status ("even we have believed") are not saved because of their
legal Jewish status, but because they have placed their faith in the
Messiah. Paul then says it a third time, by stating that "no flesh,"
that is, neither Jew nor Gentile, is saved by meeting a list of
requirements. Legal Jewish status is a non-issue when it comes to
right-standing before God and being reckoned a part of the elect of
Israel.
17"But if, while seeking to be justified in Messiah, we ourselves
have also been found sinners, is Messiah then a minister of sin? May
it never be! 18"For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove
myself to be a transgressor.
Since Paul didn't place his hope in his legal Jewish status and
associated with Gentiles, to the established Jewish community he
would have been regarded as an outsider to the covenants as well; a
"sinner." And since it was his commission by the Messiah that made
him believe and act this way, Paul sarcastically asks if Messiah is
a minister of sin. Of course, Messiah is not a minister of sin. On
the contrary, if Paul were to again think that his legal Jewish
status meant right-standing before God ("rebuild what I have once
destroyed"), he would find himself under the Torah's condemnation
because he wouldn't be trusting in Messiah for salvation.
19"For through the Torah I died to the Torah, so that I might
live to God. 20"I have been crucified with Messiah; and it is no
longer I who live, but Messiah lives in me; and the life which I now
live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me
and gave Himself up for me. 21"I do not nullify the grace of God,
for if righteousness comes through the Torah, then Messiah died
needlessly."
It wasn't being naturally or legally connected to the Torah that
saved Paul; it was through the Torah that Paul realized he was a
sinner, which led him to Messiah who saved him! The Torah teaches us
about sin, and makes us see how we are separated from God. The
consequence of breaking the Torah (sin) is death. A person has only
two options: die for your own sins or die "with Messiah." Legal
Jewish status has no bearing upon right-standing before God because,
metaphorically speaking, in order to be saved you have to be "in
Messiah." We "died with Him" and now "He lives in us." This is all
metaphoric language to show that our hope is by faith in Messiah,
not anything inherent in ourselves. Paul caps what he's been saying
by emphatically stating that righteousness does not come through
"law" (most likely referring to a legal connection to the Torah by
becoming a proselyte, that is, "works of law" or "legal Jewish
status"); otherwise Messiah died needlessly. If there was something
that we could do or was inherent in us that would cause God to
reckon us righteous, then why did the Messiah have to die? |
|
