Galatians 2:18 “If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker.”
Verse 18 closes the loop started with the previous verse, verse 17. Paul’s arguments about how some might conclude that relying on faith for salvation rather than a moral code leads to immoral living is designed to refute the Judiazers at the foundation of their own argument. The tone here is different than in Romans 7, or even later in Galatians 5, where the heresy or deception is with those who already recognize salvation is by faith and the grace of God, and used the argument of faith vs. law as an excuse to justify immoral behavior. The focus here is different. The Judiazers apparently recognized that Jesus was the Messiah and that His death was required for our redemption. But they also insisted on the continued need to follow the law. Part of the reasoning behind this was that the Law was designed to keep us on the right path – away from evil – to set God’s people apart from the wickedness of the world. A foundational point in the Judiazer’s argument would be “without the law, and relying on faith rather than the rules of the law, will lead to immoral behavior, for the law defines moral behavior.” It’s the inverse of the argument Paul refutes in Romans 7, which was “I’m free of the law in Christ, therefore I can do whatever I want.” Paul refutes both of these arguments here, first in v. 17 (by being a little sarcastic) he's pointing out that to argue that reliance on faith for justification will lead to immoral behavior leads to the ridiculous conclusion that Jesus promotes sin, or, at least faith in Jesus will promote sin. It also admits to the concept that we are all sinners by nature, and that we are bound to fail and make mistakes as we go.
This latter concept is continued here in verse 18. “If I rebuild what I destroyed.” If we go back to relying on the law for justification, the result is the same, the conclusion does not change – “I prove that I am a lawbreaker.” In other words, I am a sinner by nature. All we prove by trying to rely on the law is that we will invariably break the law. It seems hopeless, then, doesn’t it? Taken by themselves, verses 17 and 18 seem to say – “We seek justification by faith, and we discover we are still sinners. We follow the law, we prove we are still sinners.” Will we ever change? Where is the hope for freedom from sin? The rest of Galatians 2 is a snapshot of the theology of how Christ changes us from sinner to sanctified – as indeed the rest of the book of Galatians does as well. But Paul starts his presentation in the negative, I believe, to set up the concept that reliance on the law for salvation fails, in order to refute the Judiazers outright. Indeed, the dramatic emphasis of Galatians 2:21 is the ultimate refutation of this argument.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 17
Galatians 2:17 “"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! “
Paul begins an explanation here very similar to the more detailed presentation in Romans 7. This is very much like the statement “shall we sin that grace might abound?” made famous in the book of Romans. But here, Paul seems a bit more subtle. “While we seek to be justified” indicates a sincere heart – even though the Galatians were struggling with sin in their midst, and particularly these ethnic divisions, Paul is making it clear that at the base, they were not hypocrites – they were earnestly seeking the Lord. (I also see in the context of the discussion about Peter’s shortcomings in the verses just before this, this serves as a recognition that Peter wasn’t to be written off – He too was “seeking to be justified in Christ,” and had also been influenced by evil forces, much like the Galatians).
“It becomes evident” this indicates a sense of discovery.
“We ourselves are sinners” We all fall short. Paul may be employing his trademark sarcasm here. Then again, he is simply stating the truth. In our humanity, we all fail, fall short, and are prone to sin. He has held Peter out as a living example of this – a sincere believer who has acted wrongfully. Jesus does not “promote sin.” “ABSOLUTELY NOT!” Paul is beginning what serves in this book the same purpose as the entire concept of Romans 6,7 and 8 does in that book – we walk in holiness and sanctification by faith, by grace, dependent on Christ’s work and not on our own. In the context of the kind of sin that the Galatians are struggling with, this also means that we will discover that while we diligently seek Christ, we will deal with ethnic and cultural differences – Jesus does not promote these either! But as the subsequent verses show (especially verse 20) total reliance on Jesus and the finished work of Christ is the only way to overcome those issues.
Paul begins an explanation here very similar to the more detailed presentation in Romans 7. This is very much like the statement “shall we sin that grace might abound?” made famous in the book of Romans. But here, Paul seems a bit more subtle. “While we seek to be justified” indicates a sincere heart – even though the Galatians were struggling with sin in their midst, and particularly these ethnic divisions, Paul is making it clear that at the base, they were not hypocrites – they were earnestly seeking the Lord. (I also see in the context of the discussion about Peter’s shortcomings in the verses just before this, this serves as a recognition that Peter wasn’t to be written off – He too was “seeking to be justified in Christ,” and had also been influenced by evil forces, much like the Galatians).
“It becomes evident” this indicates a sense of discovery.
“We ourselves are sinners” We all fall short. Paul may be employing his trademark sarcasm here. Then again, he is simply stating the truth. In our humanity, we all fail, fall short, and are prone to sin. He has held Peter out as a living example of this – a sincere believer who has acted wrongfully. Jesus does not “promote sin.” “ABSOLUTELY NOT!” Paul is beginning what serves in this book the same purpose as the entire concept of Romans 6,7 and 8 does in that book – we walk in holiness and sanctification by faith, by grace, dependent on Christ’s work and not on our own. In the context of the kind of sin that the Galatians are struggling with, this also means that we will discover that while we diligently seek Christ, we will deal with ethnic and cultural differences – Jesus does not promote these either! But as the subsequent verses show (especially verse 20) total reliance on Jesus and the finished work of Christ is the only way to overcome those issues.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 15 & 16
Galatians 2:15-16 "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.”
Verse 15 seems full of sarcasm. After pointedly addressing Peter’s blatant hypocrisy, regarding Peter’s failings in observing the law, Paul continues by referring to himself (included rhetorically within the entire Jewish people) as a “Jew by birth” as opposed to a “Gentile Sinner,” as if Paul is also playing into the Judiazing heresy. But Paul is merely setting up his continued attack on Peter’s hypocrisy, as well as the hypocrisy of all those who advocated the Judiazers' position.
Verse 16: Paul lays out the truth of the matter by emphasizing it in triplicate. First he points out the truth of the matter from the time the law had been given to Moses (“we who are Jews by birth”), that is, that justification does NOT come via “observation of the law.” This is not to say that the law is a failure, or inherently bad (see Romans 7:12, where Paul says the law is “holy, righteous, and good”). Rather, the law cannot be used for an improper purpose. Here, that improper purpose is the effort to try and prove that following the law is the grounds for acceptance by God, or implying that the law is the plumb line used to exclude all non-Jewish people from the kingdom of God simply because they are indeed not Jews.
Paul’s emphasis changes as he restates the concept three times. First, its stated as “not the law, but faith.” Second, he states it in the framework of placing our faith in Jesus, so we are justified “by faith, and not by the law.” He changes it into a positive statement. Faith in Jesus supercedes all else, all other efforts. His last statement doesn’t mention faith at all, but simply re-emphasizes the fact that the law cannot serve to make us acceptable to God.
This, of course, is the essence of the Gospel. Verse 16 could almost serve as the thesis statement for the entire book. But in keeping with the underlying concept we have been emphasizing (racism and ethnicity) it speaks to the sincere Christian who struggles as the Galatians obviously were. The ancient Jews did actually believe in grace, and salvation by faith – the book of Genesis speaks of Abraham being justified by faith – but they gradually developed a sense of distinctiveness and exclusivity based on their own concept of nationhood and community. This was not entirely a bad thing – it helped preserve the sanctity of God’s people, and protected them against the wickedness of the world. When Jesus came, the sincere Jewish believer recognized that the faith that justified Abraham was fulfilled in Christ. Yes – Jesus was the one they had waited for, and in order to enter God’s Kingdom, you had to believe and have faith in Him. But what about this question of the Gentiles?
The practical reality for the Galatians as Paul argued was the truth that everyone is justified by faith on the same terms. Everything else is “extra.” Today, we use cultural plumb-lines to define what is “acceptable,” and we demand that outsiders be “justified” by a similar standard. This is the great sin of our modern age and our American society, and is no different than the hypocrisy of Peter discussed here in Galatians Chapter 2.
Verse 15 seems full of sarcasm. After pointedly addressing Peter’s blatant hypocrisy, regarding Peter’s failings in observing the law, Paul continues by referring to himself (included rhetorically within the entire Jewish people) as a “Jew by birth” as opposed to a “Gentile Sinner,” as if Paul is also playing into the Judiazing heresy. But Paul is merely setting up his continued attack on Peter’s hypocrisy, as well as the hypocrisy of all those who advocated the Judiazers' position.
Verse 16: Paul lays out the truth of the matter by emphasizing it in triplicate. First he points out the truth of the matter from the time the law had been given to Moses (“we who are Jews by birth”), that is, that justification does NOT come via “observation of the law.” This is not to say that the law is a failure, or inherently bad (see Romans 7:12, where Paul says the law is “holy, righteous, and good”). Rather, the law cannot be used for an improper purpose. Here, that improper purpose is the effort to try and prove that following the law is the grounds for acceptance by God, or implying that the law is the plumb line used to exclude all non-Jewish people from the kingdom of God simply because they are indeed not Jews.
Paul’s emphasis changes as he restates the concept three times. First, its stated as “not the law, but faith.” Second, he states it in the framework of placing our faith in Jesus, so we are justified “by faith, and not by the law.” He changes it into a positive statement. Faith in Jesus supercedes all else, all other efforts. His last statement doesn’t mention faith at all, but simply re-emphasizes the fact that the law cannot serve to make us acceptable to God.
This, of course, is the essence of the Gospel. Verse 16 could almost serve as the thesis statement for the entire book. But in keeping with the underlying concept we have been emphasizing (racism and ethnicity) it speaks to the sincere Christian who struggles as the Galatians obviously were. The ancient Jews did actually believe in grace, and salvation by faith – the book of Genesis speaks of Abraham being justified by faith – but they gradually developed a sense of distinctiveness and exclusivity based on their own concept of nationhood and community. This was not entirely a bad thing – it helped preserve the sanctity of God’s people, and protected them against the wickedness of the world. When Jesus came, the sincere Jewish believer recognized that the faith that justified Abraham was fulfilled in Christ. Yes – Jesus was the one they had waited for, and in order to enter God’s Kingdom, you had to believe and have faith in Him. But what about this question of the Gentiles?
The practical reality for the Galatians as Paul argued was the truth that everyone is justified by faith on the same terms. Everything else is “extra.” Today, we use cultural plumb-lines to define what is “acceptable,” and we demand that outsiders be “justified” by a similar standard. This is the great sin of our modern age and our American society, and is no different than the hypocrisy of Peter discussed here in Galatians Chapter 2.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 14
Galatians 2:14: “When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”
“When I saw” It’s interesting that Paul appears to not have noticed this right away – the implication is that he pieced together the evidence over time. Perhaps he thought the matter had been settled when he had been in Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1-10, especially when it came to what Peter believed. Also, if racist attitudes are what is at the root of the issue, its not something that the person who believes it openly espouses – its very subtle – so much so, that even Paul’s partner in ministry and good friend Barnabas is drawn in to this web of deception. (see v. 13). I have a sense that Peter was staying in Antioch, relating with Paul and fellowshipping with Jews and Gentiles alike, and it took awhile for Paul to discern exactly what Peter was doing, and what was going on. It is so easy for any of us to be drawn into this concept – either to buy into the heresy, to believe that we are defined in God’s sight by our culture OR to be fooled by those who buy into the sin, to not notice it is there. This second situation is perhaps as bad or worse, because the deception is tricky, and, like the “other Jews” of verse 13, we too can be subtlety led astray, sometimes without even realizing it!
“they were not acting” Once the blinders are removed, however, the evidence is clear. Jesus cautions us in Matthew 7:15 that we recognize “false prophets” by their fruit. Whether it was simply this issue (probably) or maybe Paul also noticed other issues where Peter’s behavior was not in keeping with God’s truth. Either way, he was discovering enough to put all the evidence together, and realize what the issue was.
Paul confronts Peter “in front of them all.” This shows how serious this really was. Traditional Jewish piety called for such reproof to be offered in private. Jesus echoed this in Matt 5:23-26, and especially in Matthew 18: 15-17, where Jesus instructs us to go to a brother who is sinning in private. But Jesus also says that if the brother does not respond, the matter is to be considered by the entire church, and then, if the brother will still not listen to the whole church, he is to be treated like a “pagan or a tax collector.” Here, Paul has already brought this issue to Peter and the church authorities previously, in private, and there were at least two public debates on the subject (Acts 2:27-30/Galatians 2, and Acts 15), so the matter had been submitted to the entire church. Paul was arguably justified for the public rebuke.
Paul was crafty and wise in the way he confronted Peter as well. He points out Peter’s hypocrisy. Peter was a Jew, but he did not necessarily live according to Jewish customs. The whole concept of accepting Gentile believers had started with Peter, back in Acts 10:9, where God showed Peter that following the Jewish dietary laws wasn’t necessary for salvation or acceptance into the broader Christian community. In Galatians 2:17, it says that Peter “ate with the Gentiles,” showing that Peter did not follow Jewish dietary tradition. Peter was living a double standard – demanding that Gentiles who didn’t know the law to follow it, when Peter, a Jew who had been brought up with the law, didn’t follow it anyway. And isn’t this the heart of ethnic judgments and prejudice? We look at those on the “other side,” be it race, ethnicity, culture, or denomination, and demand they conform to us, though that is almost always impossible, yet, we ourselves aren’t living up to God’s standards for our own lives. In particular, we would not want to be judged for who or what we are – yet, here we are, doing it. Hypocrisy is also at the roots of racism. Combine this with “justified” fear (safe neighborhood, good schools, housing values etc), and we allow ourselves to keep a facade of “righteousness” when in reality we are rejecting the core of the Gospel. This is indeed the most insidious of deceptions!
“When I saw” It’s interesting that Paul appears to not have noticed this right away – the implication is that he pieced together the evidence over time. Perhaps he thought the matter had been settled when he had been in Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1-10, especially when it came to what Peter believed. Also, if racist attitudes are what is at the root of the issue, its not something that the person who believes it openly espouses – its very subtle – so much so, that even Paul’s partner in ministry and good friend Barnabas is drawn in to this web of deception. (see v. 13). I have a sense that Peter was staying in Antioch, relating with Paul and fellowshipping with Jews and Gentiles alike, and it took awhile for Paul to discern exactly what Peter was doing, and what was going on. It is so easy for any of us to be drawn into this concept – either to buy into the heresy, to believe that we are defined in God’s sight by our culture OR to be fooled by those who buy into the sin, to not notice it is there. This second situation is perhaps as bad or worse, because the deception is tricky, and, like the “other Jews” of verse 13, we too can be subtlety led astray, sometimes without even realizing it!
“they were not acting” Once the blinders are removed, however, the evidence is clear. Jesus cautions us in Matthew 7:15 that we recognize “false prophets” by their fruit. Whether it was simply this issue (probably) or maybe Paul also noticed other issues where Peter’s behavior was not in keeping with God’s truth. Either way, he was discovering enough to put all the evidence together, and realize what the issue was.
Paul confronts Peter “in front of them all.” This shows how serious this really was. Traditional Jewish piety called for such reproof to be offered in private. Jesus echoed this in Matt 5:23-26, and especially in Matthew 18: 15-17, where Jesus instructs us to go to a brother who is sinning in private. But Jesus also says that if the brother does not respond, the matter is to be considered by the entire church, and then, if the brother will still not listen to the whole church, he is to be treated like a “pagan or a tax collector.” Here, Paul has already brought this issue to Peter and the church authorities previously, in private, and there were at least two public debates on the subject (Acts 2:27-30/Galatians 2, and Acts 15), so the matter had been submitted to the entire church. Paul was arguably justified for the public rebuke.
Paul was crafty and wise in the way he confronted Peter as well. He points out Peter’s hypocrisy. Peter was a Jew, but he did not necessarily live according to Jewish customs. The whole concept of accepting Gentile believers had started with Peter, back in Acts 10:9, where God showed Peter that following the Jewish dietary laws wasn’t necessary for salvation or acceptance into the broader Christian community. In Galatians 2:17, it says that Peter “ate with the Gentiles,” showing that Peter did not follow Jewish dietary tradition. Peter was living a double standard – demanding that Gentiles who didn’t know the law to follow it, when Peter, a Jew who had been brought up with the law, didn’t follow it anyway. And isn’t this the heart of ethnic judgments and prejudice? We look at those on the “other side,” be it race, ethnicity, culture, or denomination, and demand they conform to us, though that is almost always impossible, yet, we ourselves aren’t living up to God’s standards for our own lives. In particular, we would not want to be judged for who or what we are – yet, here we are, doing it. Hypocrisy is also at the roots of racism. Combine this with “justified” fear (safe neighborhood, good schools, housing values etc), and we allow ourselves to keep a facade of “righteousness” when in reality we are rejecting the core of the Gospel. This is indeed the most insidious of deceptions!
Monday, August 10, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 13
Galatians 2:13 “The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.”
The fear we discussed in the entry on verse 12 is shown here to be so very rampant – so widespread, that “other Jews” (those not in line with the Judiazers) and even Paul’s close associate in the ministry, Barnabas, were swayed into following this issue of excluding the Gentiles during table fellowship. This spirit of fear, in whatever form it takes, in whatever issue that causes us to be afraid regarding ethnic issues, is an insidious, evil enemy!
The fear we discussed in the entry on verse 12 is shown here to be so very rampant – so widespread, that “other Jews” (those not in line with the Judiazers) and even Paul’s close associate in the ministry, Barnabas, were swayed into following this issue of excluding the Gentiles during table fellowship. This spirit of fear, in whatever form it takes, in whatever issue that causes us to be afraid regarding ethnic issues, is an insidious, evil enemy!
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 12
Galatians 2:12 “Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.”
Here is the reason why Paul confronted Peter – “certain men came from James” Are these the same men who “seemed to be important” in Galatians 2:6? Regardless, these are the same types “bewitching” the Galatians (3:1) – those who would claim that one must follow Jewish law and tradition in order to be right with God. Here is a “new” tradition – “new” in the sense that its different from circumcision, Sabbath, and feast day issues – the issue of table fellowship. It was an established Jewish tradition that a practicing Jew was not supposed to share a meal with those who were ceremonially unclean. This had been a big deal with Jesus in his dealings with the Pharisees, who were critical when the Lord fellowshipped over a meal with “blatant sinners.” Here the Judiazers were now arguing that Jews shouldn’t share a table with Gentiles, because technically, the non-Jew was obviously “unclean” under the law. Obviously, this is “clearly wrong” because of its blatant ethnic discrimination – it made all non-Jewish Christians second class citizens, creating a caste system in the church. But we need to remember that the whole social construct of the early church was that of a “house church” system. Folks met in peoples' homes -- worship services were in your living room or dining room (indeed, there is little historical evidence that meetings were held in big, auditorium type settings like we are used to today until the time of Constantine, when Christianity was adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and they had to do SOMETHING with those old pagan temples, now vacant . . .). Gatherings of Christians in those days invariably centered around a meal. Even more so, such gatherings also centered around a new tradition instituted by Jesus – the Lord’s Supper. By adopting this position, the Judiazers were basically excluding Gentiles from their worship. Indeed, this is “clearly wrong.” In Peter’s defense, he did not participate in this because he agreed with the Judiazers in principle – he did so “out of fear.” When it comes to the issues of ethnic divisions in our churches and communities, this is where all of us usually wind up – we’re afraid to boldly cross ethnic lines, afraid that “our group” will reject us, or we’re afraid of being hurt or rejected by the “other group,’ or we’re afraid of the unknown, or afraid just because of our own prejudices. It is the spirit of fear that drives ethnic issues – things like “white flight,” fear for our safety, fear for our children, our property values, even just about our traditional way of life. Fear is the spiritual gatekeeper here. It is the first line of battle in the war against racism and ethnic prejudice.
Here is the reason why Paul confronted Peter – “certain men came from James” Are these the same men who “seemed to be important” in Galatians 2:6? Regardless, these are the same types “bewitching” the Galatians (3:1) – those who would claim that one must follow Jewish law and tradition in order to be right with God. Here is a “new” tradition – “new” in the sense that its different from circumcision, Sabbath, and feast day issues – the issue of table fellowship. It was an established Jewish tradition that a practicing Jew was not supposed to share a meal with those who were ceremonially unclean. This had been a big deal with Jesus in his dealings with the Pharisees, who were critical when the Lord fellowshipped over a meal with “blatant sinners.” Here the Judiazers were now arguing that Jews shouldn’t share a table with Gentiles, because technically, the non-Jew was obviously “unclean” under the law. Obviously, this is “clearly wrong” because of its blatant ethnic discrimination – it made all non-Jewish Christians second class citizens, creating a caste system in the church. But we need to remember that the whole social construct of the early church was that of a “house church” system. Folks met in peoples' homes -- worship services were in your living room or dining room (indeed, there is little historical evidence that meetings were held in big, auditorium type settings like we are used to today until the time of Constantine, when Christianity was adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and they had to do SOMETHING with those old pagan temples, now vacant . . .). Gatherings of Christians in those days invariably centered around a meal. Even more so, such gatherings also centered around a new tradition instituted by Jesus – the Lord’s Supper. By adopting this position, the Judiazers were basically excluding Gentiles from their worship. Indeed, this is “clearly wrong.” In Peter’s defense, he did not participate in this because he agreed with the Judiazers in principle – he did so “out of fear.” When it comes to the issues of ethnic divisions in our churches and communities, this is where all of us usually wind up – we’re afraid to boldly cross ethnic lines, afraid that “our group” will reject us, or we’re afraid of being hurt or rejected by the “other group,’ or we’re afraid of the unknown, or afraid just because of our own prejudices. It is the spirit of fear that drives ethnic issues – things like “white flight,” fear for our safety, fear for our children, our property values, even just about our traditional way of life. Fear is the spiritual gatekeeper here. It is the first line of battle in the war against racism and ethnic prejudice.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Galatians Journal: Chapter 2, verse 11
Galatians 2:11 “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.”
After the Galatians 2/Acts 11:27 visit Paul paid to Jerusalem, Peter later comes to Antioch, which was Paul’s home base during his missionary period. Where this fits into the time line is unclear, but while it follows the “famine visit,” it probably is after the Acts 15 Council as well. Paul’s righteous sarcasm is evident here. He refers to Peter by his Greek name, “Cephas,” rather then as Peter – implying a connection to his Galatians constituents, and to contrast with Peter’s sense of Jewish superiority here. Paul states he opposed Peter “to his face;” confronted him head-on – directly, because he was “clearly in the wrong” about this issue. (As an aside, it would also indicate an obligation to confront leaders when they are “clearly in the wrong,” But we need to be careful – the word is “clearly.” Here, Peter was acting in a way that clearly went against God’s word, and the direct revelation of the Holy Spirit to Paul that had been confirmed by Peter himself! This was much more than a difference of opinion! Some might also find some fault here with Paul in him not following the admonition of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17, that is, to take matters of offense to a brother privately first. But Paul had already taken care of this -- the whole Acts 11:27 visit described in Galatians 2 had been a "private" meeting on this very issue, and was settled. As noted in the previous parenthetical, it had also been settled in a way where Peter had confirmed Paul in his ministry and purpose. Paul really had no choice here but to confront Peter openly.
After the Galatians 2/Acts 11:27 visit Paul paid to Jerusalem, Peter later comes to Antioch, which was Paul’s home base during his missionary period. Where this fits into the time line is unclear, but while it follows the “famine visit,” it probably is after the Acts 15 Council as well. Paul’s righteous sarcasm is evident here. He refers to Peter by his Greek name, “Cephas,” rather then as Peter – implying a connection to his Galatians constituents, and to contrast with Peter’s sense of Jewish superiority here. Paul states he opposed Peter “to his face;” confronted him head-on – directly, because he was “clearly in the wrong” about this issue. (As an aside, it would also indicate an obligation to confront leaders when they are “clearly in the wrong,” But we need to be careful – the word is “clearly.” Here, Peter was acting in a way that clearly went against God’s word, and the direct revelation of the Holy Spirit to Paul that had been confirmed by Peter himself! This was much more than a difference of opinion! Some might also find some fault here with Paul in him not following the admonition of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17, that is, to take matters of offense to a brother privately first. But Paul had already taken care of this -- the whole Acts 11:27 visit described in Galatians 2 had been a "private" meeting on this very issue, and was settled. As noted in the previous parenthetical, it had also been settled in a way where Peter had confirmed Paul in his ministry and purpose. Paul really had no choice here but to confront Peter openly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
