What does it mean that Peter lived like a Gentile?

Explanation:

Paul explains that he stood before the Gentiles, James, Cephas (Peter), Barnabas, and anyone else from the circumcision party in order to exhort Cephas. He says that although Cephas is a Ἰουδαῖος (Jew) he lived Gentile-like. What does that mean?

To understand what Paul means, we can look at the broad and immediate literary context. In the broad context of this letter, Paul is opposing the idea that the Gentile Christians need to be circumcised (Galatians 5:2). In fact, he will explain that the whole Jewish law has been abolished by faith in Christ (Galatians 3:24–25). In other words, the Jewish law is not binding on the Gentile Christians. So we know from the broader context that Paul is contrasting the Jewish law with the gospel.

The immediate context reinforces this broader theme through a specific example. First-century Jews had dietary laws that prohibited them from eating certain foods and prescribed that their food was prepared in certain ways.⁶ On the other hand, Gentiles did not have dietary laws or restrictions. Now, in order to demonstrate that the gospel does not require the Gentiles to participate in Jewish laws, Paul points out that before James came, Cephas ate with the Gentiles, but after James came, he withdrew from them (Galatians 2:12). Paul explains that such behaviour is hypocritical (Galatians 2:13). Before James came, Cephas, although he is a Jew, acted Gentile-like, so how can Cephas now side with James and the circumcision party and require Gentiles to live like Jews?⁷

Although Paul is not explicit, his insinuation is clear. When the other Jews were not present, Cephas acted like a Gentile in the sense that he did not hold to the Jewish dietary laws. After James and the circumcision party arrived, he withdrew from the Gentiles and adhered to the Jewish dietary laws. Paul’s point is that such behaviour is not only hypocritical but contrary to the gospel (Galatians 2:14).

Counterargument:

The argument here is that Paul wants to demonstrate that Cephas is hypocritical because he does not uphold Jewish dietary laws when the Jews are absent, but he does uphold them when they are present. Cephas’ hypocrisy should be enough to convince everyone that the Gentiles do not require Jewish dietary laws. The problem is that if this is Paul’s meaning, it is hard to see how his argument could have any force. We know from the text that when James and the circumcision party arrive, Cephas withdraws from the Gentiles. So when Paul says in front of the crowd that Cephas lives like a Gentile, his assertion is inaccurate if Paul means that Cephas does not adhere to Jewish dietary laws. In fact, Cephas does not live like a Gentile because he eats with James and the circumcision group. Cephas might have known that he was acting like a hypocrite, but the rest of the circumcision party would have thought Paul was off base. Cephas ate with the circumcision group, not the Gentiles. Thus, it is unlikely that Paul makes an argument in front of the whole group that would only have made sense to Cephas. More likely, Paul has something else in mind when he says that Cephas lives like a Gentile.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument fails to interpret Galatians 2:14 in light of Galatians 2:11–13. Paul describes a deteriorating situation.⁸ Before James and the others arrive, Cephas eats with the Gentiles (Galatians 2:12). After their arrival, Cephas and even Barnabas withdraw from them (Galatians 2:13). Paul is deeply concerned, characterizing the action as hypocritical and not in step with the truth of the gospel. Paul writes in Galatians 2:14, But when I saw… The insinuation here is that Paul has left Antioch and returned.⁹ Before he left, Cephas and Barnabas ate with the Gentiles, but when he returned, they did not. Paul understood the dire impact of Cephas’ behaviour on the Galatian churches. Cephas was an influential church leader, and by undermining the gospel message in favour of Jewish dietary laws, he soiled the theological purity that Paul was trying to teach the Galatians.¹⁰ Whether or not James and the circumcision party understood Paul’s exhortation was not the point. The fact is that Cephas, Barnabas, and the rest of the Galatian Gentiles understood Paul’s message. Cephas was acting hypocritically. By standing up to the pillars of the church in such dramatic fashion, Paul reinforced the truth of the gospel as he had taught it to the Galatians.

Explanation:

Paul notices that Cephas ate with the Gentiles, but after James and the circumcision party arrive in Antioch, Cephas withdraws from the Gentiles. This incited Paul to confront Cephas in front of the other hypocritical Jews and ask Cephas why, if he is a Jew who lives like a Gentile, he forces Gentiles to live like Jews (Galatians 2:14). Why does Paul stand before the group and ask this rhetorical question? He does so because he sees that Cephas’ conduct of withdrawing from the Jews is not in step with the truth of the gospel (Galatians 2:14). What is so severe about Cephas’s eating or not eating with the Gentiles, that the behaviour would undermine the truth of the gospel? Paul draws out the implication of Cephas’ behaviour in the following verses as he explains that no man is justified before God by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ (Galatians 2:16).¹¹ Paul will expound on this theme throughout the letter, even saying that if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose (Galatians 2:21). Thus, Paul’s problem with Cephas’ behaviour is that it elevates Jewish law over faith in Christ. Of course, there were Jewish dietary laws that restricted Jews from eating certain foods. Thus, Peter’s withdrawing from eating with the Gentiles is an example of elevating the law over the gospel in the sense that Peter adhered to the Jewish dietary laws when James arrived.

Counterargument:

The text says nothing about Peter upholding dietary laws. Rather, the problem with Peter’s behaviour seems to be the fact that he ceases to fellowship with the Gentiles. This undermines the truth of the gospel because, as Paul says in Galatians 3:28, there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus. Thus, because Peter was ethnically Jewish, when James and the circumcision group arrived, he reverted to his familiar roots and stopped fellowshipping with the Gentiles.

Response to counterargument:

The text does not have to mention dietary laws for us to see that Peter’s transgression is more than reverting to his familiar roots. Our interpretation must be internally consistent, so while the above counterargument is consistent with Galatians 2:11–13, it is not consistent with our target text, which is Galatians 2:14. When Paul says that Peter, although a Jew, lived Gentile-like, this implies lifestyle.¹² In other words, Paul is saying that although Peter is an ethic Jew he lives the way a Gentile lives, so why should he compel the Gentiles to live like a Jew? If the counterargument were right, this statement from Paul is quite strange. He would be saying something like, If you are an ethic Jew but live as the Gentiles do, that is, fellowshipping with their neighbours, why do you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? There is no precedent for the notion that Gentiles were particularly known for fellowshipping with their neighbours. On the other hand, it was well known that Jews followed dietary laws whereas Gentiles did not. Thus, it is consistent with Galatians 2:11–13 and Galatians 2:14 to think that to live Gentile-like is to live without adhering to Jewish dietary laws.

Possible weaknesses

The only problem with this view is that Paul does not say that to live like a Gentile is to not uphold Jewish dietary laws. Still, although Paul is not explicit, by paying careful attention to the context, we can see that this is likely what Paul has in mind.

Explanation:

During the Maccabean and post-Maccabean periods, there grew factions within Judaism. These factions were caused by Jews who saw themselves as holding more strictly to the Jewish laws than other Jews. In terms of the covenant commitments, this meant that some Jews regarded themselves more righteous than others. Those who did not live according to the standards of the covenant community were considered sinners, and another term for sinner in first-century Jewish literature was Gentile. For a Jew to call another Jew a Gentile was to use polemical language to suggest that one undermined his responsibilities as a Jew.

When we apply this historical insight to the situation in Galatians, we see that it was likely James who said that Cephas lived like a Gentile. When James arrived, he saw Cephas living like a Gentile in that he spent time with Gentile sinners. Clearly James felt loyal to his Jewish identity and put pressure on Cephas through rhetoric that Paul now repeats.¹³

Counterargument:

There is no indication from the immediate context that Paul repeats a phrase first stated by James. In fact, we have good reason to believe that the statement is original to Paul, because Paul is the one who wrote the letter to the Galatians, and he puts the statement in his own mouth. Further, we can see from the context why Paul says it. First, Cephas eats with the Gentiles, and then when James and the circumcision group arrive, he does not. Paul says that such behaviour undermines the truth of the gospel, so he confronts Cephas with his question (Galatians 2:14). The whole scene is focused on Paul’s concern that Cephas undermines the gospel by upholding Jewish laws.

Explanation:

When James arrives in Antioch, he notices that Cephas, an ethnic Jew, is eating with Gentiles. The ethnic identity of being born a Jew was highly valued by many Jews. The fact that Peter ate with Gentiles probably threatened James’ sense of Jewish identity. Cephas was a pillar of the New Testament church (Galatians 2:6), and James probably felt that his allegiance had drifted away from his roots by eating with the Gentiles. It was natural for James to feel like the boundaries of his ethnic identity were under threat, so he used the polemical remarks against Cephas so he would withdraw from the Gentiles.¹⁴

Counterargument:

This interpretation completely overlooks the broad context of the letter. While it might be natural for humans to feel threatened when their boundaries are crossed, Paul’s whole point is that such ethnic boundaries have been demolished in Christ (Galatians 3:28). There is no indication that James had to convince Cephas to join him and the circumcision party, or that Paul confronted James. Rather, Paul confronts Cephas because he wants everyone to understand that the gospel has to do with faith in Christ, not Jewish boundary markers or works of law.

The problem with this view is that it overlooks the theological context of the letter. The letter to Galatia is occasional but it also contains terse and important theological statements. Thus, we must try to understand the occasional context of the letter, not only in light of Second Temple Judaism, but also in light of Christianity. The notion that James is polemical against Cephas is far removed from the theological context that Paul wants to convey. One is justified not by works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ.