Galatians 2

Here is the long awaited second chapter! Links to translations: Blue Letter Bible - KJV, Bible Gateway - NIV, Bible Gateway - ESV. Again, I'll be quoting from David Stern's Complete Jewish Bible.

In this chapter, we see what the real problem is. We see the reason for this entire letter and the beginning of Paul's defense for the true gospel.

Paul continues to speak about his interaction with the other apostles. He said he returned to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus and spoke to the leaders. It seems like he is making sure that he hasn't been preaching the wrong gospel. I like the ESV translation of verse 2: "I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain." This confirms his earlier points at the end of chapter one. His message was from God, but he did want to make sure he was preaching the same message as other men of God.

Verses 3-5 says, "But they didn't force my Gentile companion Titus to undergo circumcision. Indeed, the question came up only because some men who pretended to be brothers had been sneaked in - they came in surreptitiously to spy out the freedom we have in the Messiah Yeshua, so that they might enslave us. Not even for a minute did we give in to them, so that the truth of the Good News might be preserved for you."

So, this is where it comes out. Paul is shedding light on the problem that caused him to write the letter of Galatians in the first place. Throughout the rest of the chapter (which we'll get to), he talks about separation between Jews and Gentiles. The 'men who pretended to be brothers' were interested in making Titus undergo circumcision, and Paul claims that it was linked to enslaving them.

Is the circumcision referred to merely the command of circumcision? By the time of Jesus, circumcision had become directly connected to the act of proselytizing, converting to Judaism through a set of rituals deemed by men. This act of conversion through circumcision isn't seen anywhere in the bible itself - the foreigner is to be accepted and welcomed, not cast aside until he does the proper ritual. This is the reason Paul was fighting against such proselytizing, and as a shorthand way, he called it merely circumcision. This makes sense, since later on in the chapter, he calls the Jews 'the Circumcised' and the Gentiles 'the Uncircumcised.'

This understanding of Paul's language also sheds light on why Paul had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3). Later on in Galatians in 5:2-3, Paul himself says, "Mark my words - I, Paul, tell you that if you undergo circumcision, the Messiah will be of no advantage to you at all! Again, I warn you: any man who undergoes circumcision is oligated to observe the entire Torah! you who are trying to be declared righteous by God through legalism have severed yourself from the Messiah! You have fallen away from God's grace!" Is Paul contradicting himself? Is he making Messiah of no benefit to Timothy? It would definitely make more sense if in chapter 5, he is talking about seeking salvation through the ritual of proselytizing or converting. He says many times in his letters that a man's righteousness depends on his faith, so why would a Gentile feel compelled to make his conversion to Judaism official? Either he is seeking the approval of the Jewish men who are pushing for such conversion or he is seeking righteousness through the conversion, and both motivations are wrong. If you are still convinced Paul is talking about the mere act of circumcision, why would following one command in the Hebrew Scriptures completely negate the benefit that Christ has for Gentile believers? I believe he is talking about something much more.

For more information on how Paul's language of circumcision refers to the act of proselytization, you can read Tim Hegg's commentary on Genesis 17:1-27.

In Galatians 2:6-10, Paul talks about how the leaders he met with in Jerusalem recognized that he was to be a missionary to the Gentiles just as Peter would be a missionary to the Jews. They had fellowship, and everyone urged Paul to remember the poor.

2:11-16, Paul talks about his confrontation with Peter. "For prior to the arrival of certain people from [the community headed by] Jacob, he had been eating with the Gentile believes; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, because he was afraid of the faction who favored circumcising Gentile believers. And the other Jewish believers became hypocrites along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy" (2:12-13). Here is where Peter was in the wrong. He ate with Gentile believers, but when a certain group of people arrived, he wouldn't eat with them because he was worried about the approval of men. Other people also followed his example - and Paul calls it hypocrisy.

Paul is very clear that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in Christ Jesus - Gal. 3:27-28, Eph. 2:11-16, Col. 3:11. All have sinned, and all have the opportunity to be forgiven. Those preaching to the Galatians claimed there were clear divisions between Jews and Gentiles, and the only way to be saved is by becoming a 'real' Jew - being circumcised and converting properly in the eyes of the sages.

This is Paul's response: "But when I saw that they were not walking a straight path, keeping in line with the truth of the Good News, I said to Peter, right in front of everyone, 'If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, why are you forcing the Gentiles to live like Jews? We are Jews by birth, not so-called Gentile sinners'" (2:14-15).

Peter was being a hypocrite! He was a Jew, and he wanted Gentiles to be like the Jews, but he was not accepting the 'truth of the Good News' - that all are equal in the name of Jesus Christ.

"Even so, we have come to realize that a person is not declared righteous by God on the ground of his legalistic observance of Torah commands, but through the Messiah Yeshua's trusting faithfulness. Therefore, we too have put our trust in Messiah Yeshua and become faithful to him, in order that we might be declared righteous on the ground of Messiah's trusting faithfulness and not on the ground of our legalistic observance of Torah commands. For on the ground of legalistic observance of Torah commands, no one will be declared righteous" (2:16).

I know that verse is much different than most translations, but it has the same message. The works of the law will not save a person! Relying on the law for salvation is silly; our salvation comes only through the faithfulness from God. Paul says, 'Even us Jews rely on that grace, not only Gentiles. No one can be declared righteous through observance of the law!'

Verse 19 is the one many people use to say 'We don't need the law anymore!' Here it is in the NIV: "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." We can't look at this verse alone. Here is 20-21, also in the NIV: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Paul speaks of a new life. A life not bound to the curses of the law (and there are a lot in the Torah), but a new life as a result of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. He lives by faith and clings to God's grace. Great, we all agree!

Usually, however, people disagree on the part the 'law' - I prefer Torah - plays in the life of a believer. Paul has made it clear: the works of the law don't make us righteous, and we are now dependent on God's grace as opposed to the curses of the law. Does that mean the law is completely irrelevant now?

If it does, than was the purpose of the law before Christ to make one righteous? Was the purpose of the law before Christ to bring judgment on anyone who couldn't follow all the laws? God knew his people wouldn't be able to follow every single law. Was he being harsh? Cynical? Was he giving the people a law they couldn't follow? Why would a loving, merciful, compassionate God do such a thing?

Well, in Galatians 3, Paul talks more about the role of the Torah. I will post about that chapter soon, I promise.