|
From the Church on the Hill by D. Eric Williams Pastor, Cottonwood Community Church pastor@CottCommChurch.com But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned (Galatians 2:11 ESV). The timeline established in these articles places the event recounted above after Paul delivered relief funds to Jerusalem. This verse is typically understood as an example of Paul's fierce opposition to "works salvation." Yet, it runs much deeper than that. As we have seen, Paul's primary concern in the letter is the nature of the covenant community. The question before the church in the first century was not whether one must include works with faith to be saved but, must one be a Jewwho believes in Jesus in order to be among the elect? The entire letter addresses this problem. According to Paul, before certain men came from James, he [Peter] was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party (Galatians 2:12 ESV, brackets added). Keep in mind, this was not a matter of sitting at a different table during the after-service pot luck; Peter was refusing to share the Lord's supper with Gentile Christians and he was refusing to do so because (according to certain men who came from James) uncircumcised Gentiles were not Jews and so were second class Christians - or not Christians at all! Again, the purpose of the letter was to address the identity of the true chosen people. Paul says, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise (Galatians 3:28-29 ESV). The Judaizers would have disagreed with this statement absolutely. As far as they were concerned, the only way to salvation was to be a Jewwho accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Thus, Paul unflinchingly confronted Peter to his face. For, Peter, by his example, was saying he believed one must be a Jew in order to be saved. Can you imagine the scene? In a room full of people, Paul approached Peter and condemned him to his face. He didn't just say "you're wrong brother Peter." No, he said something that conveyed the fact that Peter was not possibly guilty of something but was certainly guilty and deserved punishment for it. Obviously, there is much more at stake here than we might see at first glance. One reason Peter's behavior is surprising is that he was the first apostle to go to the Gentiles. In doing so he violated the Mosaic stipulations. He was criticized for his conduct when he returned to Jerusalem but clearly defended his actions as participation in the work of God – not simply a personal accommodation. Modern interpretations of the book of Galatians have obscured Paul's intent in one of two ways. First, as mentioned, there is the interpretation of Galatians as an "anti-legalistic treatise." The other variety of misinterpretation suggests Galatians teaches an "inclusive theology" meaning, everyone is welcome in the body of Christ regardless of their "sexual orientation" practice of syncretism, embrace of anti-Christian ideologies and so on. We will address these issues in the body of future articles. |
|