by Tin-chee Lo; October 11, 2021
Peter and Barnabas knew that the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem were unwilling to eat at the same table with Gentiles, so they left the table in order not to offend them, pretending that they were still loyal to Jewish traditions. In fact, Paul had long consensus with the apostles that both Gentiles and Jews became citizens of the kingdom of God because of the redemptive work done on the cross of Jesus. This has nothing to do with observing the Law of Moses or the Jewish tradition.
But Peter and Barnabas, as church leaders, did things that were not in conformity with the truth. They dared not publicly show that the gospel of Christ had already united Jews and Gentiles into One. Not sitting at the table with the Gentiles would be tantamount to denying the truth of oneness that Peter had already been convinced. Before the people from James (i.e., from Jerusalem) arrived, Peter didn’t think there was anything wrong with eating with Gentiles.
Peter, as a leader of the church, publicly gave in to the Jerusalem Jews who were still adhering to the law. This is tantamount to denying the work of Jesus which unites the Jews and Gentiles into one body.
Paul saw that such an approach would endanger the truth of the Gospel. He must correct Peter’s mistakes in front of everyone, otherwise Peter’s action would send a very wrong message to all Christian churches. So Paul openly rebuked Peter.
One would expect Paul would say in this way: “Peter, you are a hypocrite, you have been acting not according to what you believe in order to please men. You are a coward because you did not boldly show your believe to your Jerusalem brothers.” But Paul did not say that, instead he said,
“Cephas, 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? (Galatians 2:14).”
What is going on? When I thought carefully about the short phrases that Paul had used to reproach Cephas, I found that I had great difficulty to understand them.
I have asked many Bible-teachers, though their explanations were correct and irrefutable, their explanations don’t seem to be correspondingly consistent with every phrase that Paul said. Deducing from “every word and every phrase” spoken by Paul to the “clear and correct” conclusion given to me by spiritual elders and commentaries, there is a process, but not a direct one. How does this process work? After much thought, I finally came up with the following understanding.
I think Paul is using a special kind of idioms, a literary tool that works something like this:
- One first makes a clear statement “A” which is not the real message one wishes to convey, but a very clear and understandable one.
- Once “A” is given, a conclusion “B” will immediately and naturally follow even one has not yet express it, or even there is no need to express it because people already get it.
Example:
- Idiom: “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”
- Part A: “A bird in the hand” is a statement of fact.
- Part B: “is worth two in the bush” is the real message to convey — reminding us to value what is secure rather than gamble for something that may never materialize.
Let’s analyze Paul’s reprimanding language:
“You are a Jew”
Of course Peter is an authentic Jew. Paul even used the title “Cephas” to emphasize this fact.
“yet you live like a Gentile”
Suppose you are not circumcised like the rest of the Jews, and you eat food sacrificed to idols, and so on.
“and not like a Jew”
You don’t even obey the Jewish traditions and the laws of Moses.
“How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”
If so, how can you persuade the Gentiles to become a member of Judaism?
Paul gave a “reasoning process” that everyone can understand. This is the “A” part. Of course, Paul definitely did not want Peter to lead Gentiles to believe in Judaism. This is affirmed by the theological thoughts of the entire book of Galatians in general, and from the context of the “leaving from the eating table” in particular.
Then, what was Paul’s real message?
Paul’s explicit statement “A” in short is: If you are not a loyal Jew, you cannot lead Gentiles to Judaism.
Paul’s implied (or unspoken) message “B” is: In the same way, if you are not a faithful believer to the doctrine that “Christ has demolished the dividing wall between the Jews and the Gentiles”, how can you then evangelize the Gentiles to believe in Christ?
Before Peter knew Jesus, he was a Jewish man, so Paul’s “explicit statement” should be heartily acceptable by him. Therefore, Paul used this statement as a bridge for communication, so that Peter could grasp the “unspoken statement” that Paul really wants to reprimand him. In addition to Galatians 2:14, another biblical example is the dialogue between Nathan and David, recorded in 2 Samuel 12:1:7.
Paul saw that Peter’s action would jeopardize the orthodoxy of the Gospel poisoning the entire church, and it was a matter of great importance, the stake was extremely high, so he must publicly correct Peter’s mistake in front of everybody, making an exception to the steps he had outlined in Matthew 18:15-20.
