At any rate, whether it is the case or not, it has not been established that Paul is still speaking to Peter by verse 15. The possibility remains that verse 14 summarizes the essence of what Paul said to Peter, and that verse 15 begins a new section in which Paul directly addresses the Galatians. The objections commonly proposed against this view are unsuccessful.

Some translations do not close the speech until the end of verse 21, thus suggesting that the entire section, from verse 14 to 21, is a quotation, paraphrase, or summary of Paul's speech to Peter (NIV, NASB, NKJV, although the margin notes acknowledge other possibilities).

Against this, Fung writes, "But to regard the whole of vv. 14b-21 as direct discourse or at least as a substantial (though not verbatim) report of what Paul said at Antioch is to come up against the difficulty that v. 17 seems removed from the concrete situation at Antioch (the objection expressed there can hardly have come from Peter)." In other words, it is unlikely that Paul's speech to Peter extends all the way to verse 21 because the objection against the gospel in verse 17 could not have come from Peter, and therefore Paul's response against it could not have been part of the speech. If Fung is correct, then Paul's speech to Peter would end at the end of verse 16 (NLT, YLT).

Now, verse 17 says, "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!" This is what the verse says, but we can dismiss Fung's point even without examining it. This is because his argument depends on an unjustified assumption that has no necessary connection with what the verse says. And the assumption is that one person's speech to another, or at least Paul's speech in this case, must carry immediate relevance to the topics and persons in question at every point. So, according to this assumption, unless verse 17 seems to be a response to something that Peter said, it is most likely not part of Paul's speech to Peter. Thus the verse marks the transition between Paul's speech to Peter and Paul's direct address to the Galatians.

It is indeed reasonable to assume that Peter did not raise the objection that Paul answers in verse 17, since the objection challenges the gospel that Peter himself preached – that is, the same message that Paul preached. Here Peter is charged with hypocrisy, not consistency – his behavior contradicted his own conviction. If he had raised the objection in verse 17, it would mean that he had become an enemy of the gospel, and thus his action would have been consistent with an evil profession. But since he was charged with hypocrisy, we may assume that he remained loyal to the true gospel in his profession, and thus the objection in verses 17 could not have originated from him.

However, it is logically invalid to proceed from the above to the conclusion that Paul must no longer be speaking to Peter in verse 17. Again, the former is bridged to the latter by the unjustified assumption that one person's speech to another must carry immediate relevance to the topics or persons in question at every point. But this assumption finds no support in the biblical text or in our everyday speech.

For example, in Romans 9:19, Paul brings up a potential objection against the doctrine of election thus: "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'" But the bare mention of this objection tells us nothing about whether his readers in fact said it. In fact, it does nothing to indicate whether anyone who encounters the doctrine would raise it. It is an objection that could come up, but whether it ever does or not is an entirely different matter. Nevertheless, to answer it here adds to the exposition and coherence of the doctrine as Paul has been presenting it in the letter. He tells us that such an objection is without merit because the justice of election is founded on God's absolute right as the Creator of all things (v. 20-24). This point could and should be mentioned and addressed whether or not anyone challenges the doctrine from this perspective.

Likewise, although verse 17 could not be a response to an objection that Peter raised, since Peter could not have raised that objection in the first place, this does nothing to tell us whether it marks a transition between Paul's speech to Peter and his direct address to the Galatians. Thus no successful objection has been offered against any of the three views above regarding where the transition occurs.

Posted in Expositions | Permanent Link