Commentary on Galatians (21)

GALATIANS 2:11-14
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 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. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

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?"

Verse 11 begins Paul's account of a confrontation he had with Peter at Antioch. Then, the middle of verse 14 begins what is either a quotation or paraphrase of what Paul said to Peter. It seems possible from the language and content of the rest of the passage (to verse 21) that Paul transitions from recounting what he said to what he is now saying to the Galatians. However, it is difficult to specify the precise point where this transition takes place. Thus our English translations are not unanimous on where Paul's speech to Peter ends, as indicated by where each closes the quotation.

Some of them close the speech at the end of verse 14 (RSV, NRSV, ESV, HCSB, NET, ISV), so that the rest of the chapter (v. 15-21) becomes Paul's direct address to the Galatians. Fung complains that this is "most unlikely," because "the thought of that verse is incomplete without the explanation which follows." But this reason is too weak to affect the discussion. First, verse 14 is perfectly intelligible even if read by itself, and explains the "hypocrisy" that Paul decries in verse 13. The thought of verse 14 is by no means incomplete. Second, even if the thought of verse 14 is incomplete, it does not follow that verse 15 continues Paul's speech to Peter. Paul is writing to the Galatians, not to Peter, and he could very well begin a section by citing what he said to Peter but completes it by directly addressing the Galatians. His intention is not to tell a story, but to make a point through the story, verses 11-14 successfully make his point, leading to a more theological exposition in verses 15-21, whether or not this latter portion belongs to the original speech to Peter.

Another reason offered against closing the speech at the end of verse 14 is the use of "we" in verse 15. Jervis writes, "Before their conversion the Galatians were pagans, so when Paul writes we who are Jews he is obviously referring to himself and the Jewish Christians he addressed at Antioch." And on this basis she claims, "This suggests that verse 15 is part of Paul's record of his words to Peter." But the reasoning here is invalid. It is true that because the Galatians were pagans, the words "we who are Jews" cannot include them. However, this does not necessarily mean that they must refer to Paul, Peter, and the Jews at Antioch in the context of that confrontation. If Paul is no longer speaking to Peter by verse 15, but rather to the Galatians, then "we who are Jews" can refer to Jewish Christians in general, that is, as opposed to Gentiles or Gentile Christians. The verse would make sense either way.

Then, Cole writes, "The opening verses" – by this he means the section that begins with verse 15 – "certainly make better sense if we imagine them as part of an expostulation addressed nominally to Peter, but actually to all the Jewish Christians present, whether members of the local church or strangers from Jerusalem." But why does it make better sense to interpret the section this way? It is unclear if his next statement is intended to offer a reason: "The argument is strictly Jewish; for the moment the Gentile Christians, whether of Antioch or Galatia, have become awed onlookers at a battle of giants."

We raise three questions against the above. First, what does he mean that the argument is "strictly Jewish"? Is there a pagan argument, a Gentile argument, for justification by faith apart from works of law? How can the argument be non-Jewish if the dispute is tied to whether Gentiles should follow Jewish customs? So the statement is misleading if he intends it in this sense. But perhaps he means that the argument is one that occurs strictly among Jewish Christians. If so, then we are left with no explanation as to why he thinks that the opening verses of the section make better sense if taken as part of Paul's speech to Peter.

Second, whether he means that the nature of the premises and inferences are Jewish, or that the confrontation occurs among Jewish people, what does this have to do with whether Paul has turned to address the Galatians in verse 15? If he means that the premises and inferences are Jewish, then how about Galatians 3:6-14? There Paul uses one Old Testament verse after another from the eras of Abraham and Moses to make his point to his Gentile audience. And there is also 4:21-31, where Paul makes his point based on the distinctions between Sarah and Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael, and Mount Sinai and the heavenly Jerusalem. As long as they are biblical premises, "Jewish" premises can be applied to Gentiles without modification. But perhaps Cole's point is that the confrontation at Antioch occurred among the Jews. If so, then again this has no direct relevance to whether verse 15 continues Paul's speech to Peter.