In Galatians 2:14 Paul publicly reprimands Peter for shrinking back from true gospel faith to trying to please the Judaizers. My confusion comes with the statement, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew.” Why did Paul not say instead, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Judaizer.” The answer is probably staring me in the face, but for some reason, I have always struggled to understand the meaning behind Paul’s statement. Thank you in advance for shedding some light on this.
2 Likes
Hi @mary,
This is a great question! I’m so glad you asked it because it led me to engage the Scriptures again and to think deeply about them. I look forward to your insights and what others might share.
I think the heart of the answer is in Galatians 2:12, where we learn that Peter had been accustomed to eating with the Gentiles. This demonstrated that he no longer felt that keeping the Jewish dietary regulations was necessary to please God.
With that verse in mind, here’s my “amplified” version of verse 14:
If you, who are a Jew, have been living like a Gentile by eating with Gentiles and not keeping Jewish dietary rules, how can you now change, just because the circumcision party has arrived, and start to compel Gentiles to live like Jews?”
That is, Paul is pointing out Peter’s hypocrisy and people-pleasing tendencies.
I wish the implications were limited to Peter’s half-hearted embrace of the gospel.
But I wonder… what are some ways that we tend to limit our freedom in Christ — and even place burdens on those around us — in order to fit in with influential people in our religious context?
4 Likes
This question took me on a road of research because it’s not as simple as it appears. I agree with all that Carson said, but I wanted to find out the background behind it.
Peter and the other apostles and believers had been spreading the gospel to only the Jews in Antioch. But, when Peter was in Joppa, he had his encounter with Cornelius, a Gentile, and discovered that the gospel had been made available to the Gentiles, as well.
When those from Jerusalem heard about this, they came to investigate. The leaders accepted Peter’s story about Gentiles being included. Scripture isn’t explicit as to the timing of all of this, but it does say that Peter then was joined by Barnabas and Saul (Paul) who were teaching (and eating with the Gentiles) in Antioch. Again, somewhere along the line, Judaizers came along insisting that the Gentiles be circumcised, thus binding them to the law when they had been freed from the law by Christ.
Peter must have backed down from his freedom to be free, fearing non-acceptance from born Jews. In so doing, he influenced Barnabas and others to do the same.
In my mind, Paul’s criticism was aimed at Christian Jews who were freed from the law, and free to associate with Gentiles, but who were acting like “sinful Gentiles” in requiring the Gentiles to be bound by the circumcision law. They should have been living as freed Christian Jews, not binding the Gentiles with the law which they, themselves had been free from.
You have to go back to Acts 11 and 15 to get a sense of what Paul was telling the Galatians. I hope this helps in some way.
2 Likes
I love your “amplified” version. This brings it up to the present tense and makes me examine if I am guilty of following the same principle (in other ways) that Paul was observing 2000 years ago. This reminds me of something my mom said more than once: “The Bible is more current than today’s newspaper.” I appreciate your wisdom and insight and always pointing us to Christ.
2 Likes
@sharon Thank you for your reply. I apologize for the delayed response. We have been away at an extended family gathering and I am just now getting back into the daily routine again.
I never considered that Paul’s audience was Jews who were also Christian, with the exception of Peter and Barnabus and maybe a very few others. I had always assumed the majority in attendance were unconverted Jews because they were mixing works plus grace for salvation. Because of that formula, I wasn’t sure if they were really converts. I found your answer insightful.
Thanks again, Sharon and I am glad to see you here in the UP community. I always gleaned a lot from your perspective in our prior service together. I know you will be a blessing here as well.
1 Like
If we look down to it to submerge more deeper, we find further a wider horizon of understanding which the Galatians succumbed to the Jewish practices as the old tradition may require it. The new testament was not yet completed to gain more access to divine doctrinal foundation for even Peter slid to the point of erroneous understanding which resulted to unethical application.
The confrontation of Paul against Peter, that he stood him by the face, brought Peter to concede because he was guilty of doing so. Peter grasped the concrete foundation of grace for many reasons: 1.) No man is justified by the works of the law - Gal. 2:16 KJV. 2.) Man is save by grace through faith and not of works - Eph. 2:8-9 KJV. 3.) The Jews by nature (believers in Christ) are not sinner’s to the Gentiles - Gal. 2:15. 4.) If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain - Gal. 2:21 KJV.
The confrontation of Paul and Peter is not just by circumstance in some occasion. Paul has knowledge about it because it is a regular meeting of Peter with the gentiles (probably some are Galatians and rest of the gentiles). I should say, maybe a common fellowship. Peter might have some disciples with him during that occasion as the servings of food is Jewish delicacy. This is one of Paul’s irritating gesture to confront Peter aside from any other else.
But the worst that Paul’s reprimanding action is that, when he directly interrogated Peter why he did compelled the Gentiles to live as do the Jews.
I may guess some points to discuss in this juncture why Paul indignantly confronted Peter in this undesirable occasion. One is the ironic condition which Peter employed as regard to the law. In Romans 10:4 states, that Christ is the end of the law. Before the Calvary event, the law is still binding in the Jews tradition, of course, exception to the gentiles. In the dispensation of grace, Christ is the end of the law. And why should the gentiles (converted to christian) must have to live with that standard of the law?
Paul must have a strong ground to defend and to prevent it to happen. Gentiles are not Jews and have not the right even to be. But because of Christ, Gentiles were converted to share the abundance of GRACE (God’s Riches At Christ Expense - 2 Cor. 8:9 KJV) and not to become Jews by practice.
Paul is silent to this point behind for he knew then that gentiles to become Jews (while believing in Christ) is a blasphemy - Revelation 2:9; 3:9 KJV…
Hi @ely,
I appreciate your passion for the ‘concrete foundation of grace.’
I was a bit curious by your description,
I think you are getting at the idea that Paul was aggressively and publicly confronting Peter?
I think we are on the same page here in terms of the beauty of the gospel.
Paul argues (referring to his own experience of the gospel) that Jews and Gentiles are crucified with Christ, Christ is living in them, and they live by faith in the Son of God, who loves and gave himself for us (Galatians 2:20).
In light of this miraculous salvation, there is no need to add to our salvation by following Jewish practices or any other cultural practices or religious observances.
In light of this, my take is that I don’t see Paul as irritating but as courageous, noble, and healthy. It is a difficult occasion, and Paul was indignant at their hypocrisy, but I see this as a virtuous and loving confrontation nonetheless.
I think Revelation 2:9 needs its own discussion, so I will start a new post on this verse.