Commentary on Galatians (23)
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.
Commentary on Galatians (22)
The third question concerns a side issue, but nevertheless an important one. Cole says that "for the moment the Gentile Christians, whether Antioch or Galatia, have become awed onlookers at a battle of giants." Now, who are these "giants"? In the previous statement, he asserts that the opening verses of this section make better sense if they are understood 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."
If the "giants" include only Peter and Paul, then when Cole describes this as a "battle," the implication is that Peter resisted, that he took a fighting stance against Paul on the issue. But it was more likely a one-sided rebuke. Peter's error was in his hypocrisy, in acting contrary to his own beliefs on the matter. He was confronted with what he believed in the first place. For him to argue with Paul would have been to renounce the gospel, the same message that he believed and preached. This would have placed him under the eternal condemnation specified in Galatians 1:6-9. But there is no evidence that Peter went this far, that is, a complete apostasy from the gospel. Thus from this perspective, there was really no battle.
If the "giants" include "all the Jewish Christians present," then what does that make the Gentile Christians? Were they mere commoners or spiritual dwarfs compared to the Jews? Note that "giants" is Cole's word, not Paul's. And according to Cole, the Gentile Christians "have become awed onlookers" in that incident. What we have here is an evangelical commentator committing the very error that the letter to the Galatians and the ministry of Paul were designed to destroy. It is this undue venerable of the Jews, whether stated or implied, and whether deliberate or unintentional, that subverts the very gospel that eliminates the distinction between Jews and Gentiles where spiritual status is concerned.
There is no indication at all that the Gentile Christians – at least those at Antioch – were awed, or that they were mere onlookers. Such a description could suggest that they were ignorant, helpless, and passive spiritual children, when every indication implies that the church at Antioch was thriving and well-taught (Acts 11:19-30). These Christians were instructed by Paul himself, so that unless he had been teaching them a different gospel, which is unthinkable, we must assume that many or even most of the Antioch Christians could have confronted Peter with the same rebuke that Paul delivered.
Whether Cole intends to include Paul and Peter, or the two apostles plus all the Jewish Christians, by calling them "giants" and by calling the Gentiles "awed onlookers," he betrays a bias that defies the spirit of the gospel. Here it is subtle, but in many traditions, an undue venerable of the nation of Israel, of Jewish Christians, and of so-called Messianic Christianity, is rampantly promoted and practiced. This is especially prominent among dispensationalists, but it is not limited to them. They think that they are doing God a great service, but in reality they have become the enemies of the gospel. Scripture declares that God could raise up children to Abraham even from stones (Matthew 3:9), but the true heirs of the promise are those who believe (Galatians 3:29).
As a Christian, I am more of a Jew – that is, a true Jew (Romans 2:28-29) – than one who is a natural descendant of Abraham but who does not believe in Christ. Neither is one my superior who is both a natural descendant of Abraham and a believer in Christ, for "there is no difference" (Romans 10:12). Thus I refuse to allow anyone to claim any inherent spiritual advantage over me just because he might be a natural descendant of Abraham. One who exalts himself on such a basis is to be despised and humiliated, not congratulated. If he is a true heir of Abraham, he would do the same thing that Abraham did (John 8:39). A true heir is one who has the faith of Abraham (Romans 4:16). Abraham is my father, and not the father of a non-Christian Jew. And as a true heir, I exclude such an imposter from the family. This, too, is part of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.
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.
Confusion in Calvinism
I have been studying Calvinism and there is one part that seems out of place. From reading your articles, you might be just the person that can give a straight answer by cutting through many Calvinists' compatibilist and "preacher" language.
Calvinists affirm divine determinism, holding to God as first cause and man as second cause. Man is free so long as he is not externally controlled. They say that Adam was "able not to sin" before the Fall, but he did sin. But if Adam was positively good, then how did he fall without God somehow willing his nature to do it? Is this not libertarian free will? How can you have determinism and libertarian free will?
Is this a case of some compatibilists confusing the matter by introducing some "self determining" concepts? Or is this somehow inexplicably explained by a Calvinist's definition of free will or free moral agency still as a second cause?
Thanks.
I received the above message some time ago from a person who was confused about these aspects of Calvinism, as it is commonly presented. I call this scheme popular Calvinism or inconsistent Calvinism. In my reply I could only take time to recommend The Author of Sin, in which I address all of these questions and more. Here I will make some additional comments.
This person is generally correct in his observations. He is able to see through the errors associated with first and second causes, and the incoherence of compatibilism. These do not come from biblical teaching, but human tradition. It is true that adherents to these doctrines attempt to offer further explanations for them, but these also fail miserably, and some finally appeal to "mystery." This is their way of ending the conversation by force without recanting their indefensible views.
From here this person could incorrectly conclude, as many have done, that all aspects of Calvinism are wrong, or he could correctly conclude that these particular details in popular Calvinism are unbiblical, although perhaps a consistent Calvinism is possible when these errors are eliminated. The truth is that these and several other distinctives in popular Calvinism are unbiblical, irrational, and outright ridiculous. And it is this false Calvinism that drives many people away from the true doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty over all things. Thus this scheme does tremendous disservice to Christ's cause and his kingdom. In asserting itself as proper Calvinism or the correct representation of the biblical doctrine, it has ironically become one of Arminianism's strongest allies, since it offers men an excuse to reject the biblical doctrine, and a strawman through which to attack it.
Against the opposition and revilement of many inconsistent Calvinists, some of us have been striving to present the doctrine as it is clearly and coherently taught in Scripture — that God is sovereign, and man is not free. Man is morally responsible precisely because this is the case, for moral responsibility can only be founded on God's decree to judge, and not on man's freedom to act. For even if man is free to act but God has not decreed to judge, man would still not be morally responsible, or held accountable, which is the definition of responsibility. But if God has decreed to judge, then man is responsible regardless of whether he is free to act in one way or another. The decree is just because God is just by definition, and not because his decree is in accord with the common unbiblical and arbitrary assumption that one must be free (in any sense) to be held accountable.
Here we have the most hated account of divine sovereignty, but it stands unassailable on its scriptural foundation and perfect coherence. And because it is totally theocentric, it also functions as the standard by which men's reverence or rebellion toward God is tested and revealed.
Recommended
From vincentcheung.com:
"Forced to Believe" (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, (1) , (2)
More than a Potter (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
Freewill Offerings and Human Freedom
Creatures Cannot Initiate Motion
1 Timothy 2:3-6 and 2 Peter 3:9
Blasphemy and Mystery in Theology
A Culture of Irreverence, Part 1
A Culture of Irreverence, Part 2
God's Holiness and Evil Thoughts
God Passive Only Relative to Himself
From rmiweb.org: