Galatians 2 gives us a rare glimpse into the first century leadership of our faith, and in it we see that Peter and Paul had a disagreement, which culminated in Paul opposing Peter to his face. Understanding what was happening that lead to Paul confronting Peter will give us insight into a major issue of the day, and help us to better understand not just Galatians but the whole of the New Testament.
Peter and Paul are probably the two most respected gospel teachers of all time. Peter was one of the original twelve disciples and spent much time with the Messiah, even joining him to briefly walk on water! Paul had a vision of Jesus confronting his actions and explaining that he was the Messiah, he traveled extensively sharing the good news. They both authored books of the New Testament. They served the same God and mission to share his message...so what was the problem?
We are hearing the story from Paul's perspective and he doesn't shy back from telling us what happened, plainly stating, "I withstood Peter to his face, because he was in the wrong," (Galatians 2:11). If we didn't know Paul and Peter it would be easy to chalk this up as Paul insulting or disregarding Peter, but I don't think that's the case here. Scripture would not be filled with needless put-downs or complaints. Rather, this is calling our attention to the importance of the issue at hand.
Paul goes on to explain that up until certain men arrived, Peter had been perfectly fine eating meals with Gentile believers (Galatians 2:12). But since Peter feared these men who belonged to the circumcision sect, he withdrew and made it a point to separate himself from the Gentiles. Paul considered this to be a very hypocritical thing to do.
Quick side note: in this case it's important to note that phrases like, "those of the circumcision," aren't referring to men who have been circumcised, but rather to the sect or movement that believed that circumcision was a prerequisite for salvation and being part of God's people.
What is the big deal here? Shouldn't Peter be allowed to eat with whoever he wants? We need a little background here: in Judaism at the time (and still in some sects today), eating with non-Jews was strictly forbidden. It was not done ever. And we must know that this is not a rule that God gave to his people! There is nothing in Scripture that says people from different ethnicities or religious backgrounds can't eat together. And there is certainly nothing in the Bible that says that YHWH's people must be separated according to their backgrounds or where they are from. The prohibition that Peter started following was a manmade law in Judaism. A rule designed to keep those with the 'wrong' background out of the faith or deemed they be treated as second-class citizens. This is not in line with what the Bible says.
Traditions aren't always bad, but in this case the Bible says that this "was not in line with the gospel." This why Peter's action was a big deal, because he was putting a manmade law above God's instructions, one that perpetuated ideas that were against the truth of Scripture. Peter's sudden refusal to eat with gentiles was promoting ideas and actions that weren't consistent with the good news of the Messiah, such as treating non-Jews like secondary citizens. His action said, "You can believe in Jesus, but you'll never be as good as us."
Paul could see that this went against what the Bible said, which was why he confronted Peter about it. Paul goes on to ask a simple question, which is often misconstrued to mean that all the Biblical commandments are done away with. "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew. Why would you then compel a Gentile to live as a Jew?" (Galatians 2:14)
Now it is important to realize that Scripture does not equate 'Jew' with Israelite or God's people, so being described as a Jew doesn't just mean that your ancestors were Israelites. Like "the circumcision" the word Jew describes a specific religious sect, one that Paul told us in Galatians 1:13 was his former way of life.
Since the word Jew was brought up in a context of commandments not found in the Bible, we see that Paul is addressing the requirement of following the rules of a manmade religion, and not just the Bible's instructions. When he says Peter was living as a gentile, he means that Peter wasn't keeping the manmade traditions. So when Paul asks, "Why pressure gentiles to live as Jews?" he means, why should we teach new believers laws and rituals that aren't found in the Bible?
The context of this alongside his rebuke of Peter keeping Jewish law tells us that Paul does not think believers need to follow Jewish law, but he's not saying that all believers shouldn't keep YHWH's commandments that are found in the Bible. The point Paul is making is to never sacrifice Biblical truths in order to stick with manmade customs. He wanted all believers to know that their human bloodline was utterly irrelevant next to the blood of the Messiah. He goes on to explain:
"In the Messiah, you are all children of God through faith, as you have been united with Jesus through baptism and have put on the Messiah like new clothes. There is neither Jew nor gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in the Messiah. If you belong to the Messiah, then you are Abraham's seed and his heirs according to the promise." -Galatians 3:26-29
This issue is a cornerstone one in the New Testament. For the disciples, it was a breaking away from the elaborate traditions and rituals of their fathers that excluded the masses. This meant embracing the simplicity of the Bible. While the religious leaders of the day taught that non-Jews were 'common' or otherwise unsuitable for relationship with God, Paul knew that was not the case. Paul withstood Peter for perpetuating this lie by honoring the traditions of men above the commandments of God.
Related posts:
The Three Types of Laws in Scripture
What You Need to Know When You Read Galatians
Commandments or Traditions - Understanding the New Testament
.JPG)
