Galatians Chapter 2

A Biblical Understanding of Circumcision

The Torah supports that circumcision was not necessary for conversion. In the story of Abraham. God made a covenant with Abraham before Abraham was circumcised. Abraham entered into a relationship with God first, and this was followed by circumcision. In Romans four, Paul uses the story of Abraham to demonstrate God's relationship with mankind. Converts develop a relationship with God (a circumcised heart) before receiving the sign of the covenant (physical circumcision).

Compare this to a marriage. A man and a woman make vows to each other, pledging to be faithful and true to one another. They do this before they take upon themselves the sign of the covenant, the ring. Circumcision is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Romans 4:11), the outward seal or sign of an inward response and commitment to God. This inward change is a circumcision of the heart and is received prior to the external sign of physical circumcision. The external sign is a picture of the internal reality. God does not show favoritism. He developed a relationship with Abraham prior to circumcision, and he will likewise develop a relationship with others prior to circumcision (Acts 15:19).

Search the Torah, and you will find no passage requiring a foreigner to be circumcised to enter into a covenantal relationship with God. Even Israel was able to enter into covenant without being circumcised. In Deuteronomy 29, the Israelites enter into covenant with God just before crossing the Jordan into Canaan, though an entire generation had not been circumcised. It is not until Joshua five, after the Israelites have crossed the Jordan, that the sons of Israel are circumcised. Like Abraham, the Israelites enter into a relationship with God first, and then are circumcised.

This is not to say that circumcision is unimportant. It is an outward response and an act of obedience for those who have already entered into covenant with God. For example, those who eat the Passover sacrifice must be circumcised (Exodus 12:48). This, like all of God's commands, is not an “entrance requirement” into a relationship with God; rather, God's people respond to the free gift of salvation by obeying and following God's instructions.

Paul Goes to Jerusalem (2:1-10)
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 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. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. (2:1-3)
At the beginning of chapter two, Paul reminds the Galatians that he, Barnabas, and Titus had gone up to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles about the gospel message Paul had been bringing to the Gentiles. The main issue is revealed in verse three: some are teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised to be saved. Paul stresses that even Titus, a Greek believer in Jesus, was not forced to be circumcised. Therefore, others should not be either.

For many Jews, circumcision was a prerequisite to learning the commandments (and to salvation in Acts 15:1), and so they were urgently compelling those who were returning to God or coming to God to be circumcised immediately. In his book, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, E.P. Sanders argues that the primary issue in Paul's letter to the Galatians is not that some were trying to earn their salvation by works of the law, but rather that they were requiring certain works of the law as an entrance requirement into God's people (see chapter one, entitled “The Law is not an entrance requirement”). The primary manifestation of this was the requirement of circumcision prior to salvation.

Yet the idea that a man had to be circumcised before having a relationship with God was a commandment of men, not of God. It is not found in the Torah. Even Abraham was justified through faith first, and then received the sign of the covenant (Genesis 15, 17; cf Romans 4:9-11). Paul claims that if we submit to the teachings of men, we will find ourselves in slavery. He will develop this idea, including what exactly we are enslaved to, throughout the remainder of his letter to the Galatians.

Note that Paul is not taking a position on circumcision itself. Despite the common misconception of many Christians, Paul was not opposed to circumcision. In fact, he even had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:1-4), and he stated that "the sign of circumcision" is "a seal of the righteousness that [Abraham] had by faith while he was still uncircumcised" (Romans 4:11a). But Paul's adversaries in Galatia wanted circumcision not to be simply a sign that showed faith, but rather part of the method through which righteousness was attained. Paul stands against those compelling circumcision as a prerequisite to being saved.

If we take verse three out of context, we might be tempted to wrongly tie circumcision to the Law of Moses, equate the law with slavery, and understand this to mean we are free from the Law of Moses. In order to justify such a position, we would have to find a commandment in the Law of Moses that requires circumcision for Gentiles as a prerequisite to walking with God. No such law exists. Not even the nation of Israel was required to be circumcised to be in covenant with God (Deuteronomy 29:14; cf. Joshua 5). Without finding this requirement, the argument collapses.

False Brothers and the Truth of the Gospel

Who was bringing this message of circumcision? Paul continues,
Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. (Galatians 2:4-5)
False brothers were preaching a false gospel (cf 1:7-9). This is a critical issue for Paul because it threatens our freedom in Christ and brings us into slavery. It is contrary to the truth of the gospel, and Paul is zealous to preserve this truth. He will not submit to a teaching of man, but only to God’s truth.

What is the truth of the gospel that Paul is so passionate about preserving? The gospel maintains that we are saved through the work of Christ alone. There is no righteous deed that we must do first to be saved. We do not need to get our lives in order and start living righteously and then God will accept us. We simply need to respond to God’s offer of salvation by declaring that we trust Him and by submitting our lives to him.

The truth of the gospel was threatened by the false brothers who taught circumcision must happen before one could be saved. Paul will not put up with this false gospel.

Paul then refers again to the “influential” brothers (James, Peter, and John) as he did in verse 2:
And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. (Galatians 2:6–10)
Paul's somewhat sarcastic demeanor in this chapter is not intended to show disrespect for the apostles, but rather to show that what he had received did not come from men, even the “influential” apostles, but came directly from God. Verse six makes it clear that the apostles did not add anything to his message. In other words, Paul was not corrected, nor was his gospel message changed. The apostles were in agreement with Paul’s message and ministry to the Gentiles.

Freedom from the Torah?

Paul is concerned that believers may lose their freedom in Christ. What is this freedom? The context is contrasting our freedom with those who “slipped in … that they might bring us into slavery” (2:4). Paul is continuing the pattern he established in the first chapter. Freedom is found in the message that comes directly from God. Slavery comes from accepting and following teachings that are not in agreement with God’s truth. These teachings have their origin in men and they enslave us. If we want freedom, we cling to the truth of the gospel, with God as its source. The freedom we have in Christ is the freedom to stick to the pure gospel message and not introduce any extra works as necessary for salvation.

The Incident in Antioch (2:11-14)

Paul now focuses on hypocrisy among believers and turns his attention toward Peter.
But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. (Galatians 2:11-13).
Paul accuses Peter of acting hypocritically because he withdrew from the Gentiles and preferred to eat and keep company with his fellow Jews. Peter denied fellowship to the Gentiles unless they became like Jews (2:14). He did this under pressure, fearing the “circumcision party” (2:12), that is, the false brothers from 2:3-4.

A significant point is that Peter, in submitting to the teachings of the circumcision party, is not following a command from the Torah. The Torah does not command that Jews refrain from eating or fellowshipping with the uncircumcised. Rather, this is a teaching found in the Oral Law. To understand this more fully, consider the account of Peter and Cornelius found in the book of Acts. Peter tells Cornelius,
And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean” (Acts 10:28, emphasis ours).
This appeal to it being “unlawful” to associate with Gentiles is not found within the Torah. Rather, it appears to be based upon the Maccabean injunction found in Jubilees 22:16:
And you also, my son Jacob, remember my words, and keep the commandments of Abraham, your father. Separate yourself from the gentiles, and do not eat with them, and do not perform deeds like theirs. And do not become associates of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled, and all of their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable. 1
Peter succumbs to peer pressure and reverts back to the teachings of the Oral Law, mainly that Jews should not associate with uncircumcised Gentiles. Moreover, the other believing Jews follow Peter’s example (2:13).

A common understanding of this passage is that Peter, in his freedom, had been eating unclean meats such as pork with the Gentile believers, but now he has withdrawn from this practice and put himself back under the food laws of the Torah. In his commentary on Galatians, New Testament scholar Ronald Y.K. Fung explains:
Under Peter’s influence the rest of the Jewish Christians had, like him, withdrawn from table fellowship with the Gentile Christians probably because the latter were suspected of not having selected and prepared the food set before the mixed company of Jewish and Gentile Christians in strict observance of the Jewish dietary laws. It follows that for Gentiles to “live like Jews” they would have to observe the Jewish food-laws … (110-111).
Fung argues that Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile believers was at least in part due to the Jewish dietary laws. In this view, Peter had been eating unclean meats with Gentile believers, but out of fear of the circumcision party, withdrew from these believers and returned to following the Old Testament food laws. Likewise John H. Walton states,
Peter was “in the wrong” because, although he had been willing to shed the laws of Judaism (food and table restrictions) in Antioch in order to enjoy a newfound fellowship with Gentile Christians, he had later abandoned this stance to pacify the Judaizers (paragraph 16720).
This understanding assumes that Peter, in his newfound freedom in Christ, had begun to eat unclean meats, yet this assumption is not explicit in the text. Paul does not say that Peter had been eating unclean meats and then, fearing the circumcision party, put himself back under the biblical dietary laws. The question at hand is not WHAT believers can eat but rather with WHOM they can eat, namely uncircumcised believers. The primary problem is that some Jews were requiring Gentile believers to be circumcised before they could be saved. Paul says nothing about what they are eating because the focus is on circumcision. Peter withdrew from eating with uncircumcised believers.

Paul recognizes Peter’s hypocrisy and publicly rebukes him:
But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Galatians 2:14)
The problem with Peter’s behavior is that it is inconsistent with the gospel message, or, as Paul puts it, “not in step with the truth of the gospel” (2:14; cf 2:5). The purity of the gospel message is what is at stake. Salvation is by grace alone, not by works. Paul will not allow this message to be compromised.

Paul claims that Peter, by separating himself from Gentile converts, is essentially forcing these Gentiles “to live like Jews” (14). He denies them table fellowship unless they live like Jews.

This raises two critical questions:

  1. How was it that Peter had lived like a Gentile?
  2. What does it mean that Peter was forcing the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Let’s address the first question, How had Peter lived like a Gentile? Peter had accepted the basic gospel message: he was a fallen man, in need of a Savior, and his justification was solely through faith in Christ, not through any work of his own. The very heart of the gospel message is that through the work of the Messiah, both Jews and Gentiles can receive salvation, and moreover, are united into one body, the body of Christ.

When Peter accepted this basic gospel message, he had to set aside previous misconceptions and traditional Jewish understandings of Gentiles. Gentiles did not need to become Jewish to be saved. That is, justification was not conditional upon adherence to the law, and specifically, to circumcision.

Moreover, Jews were not less in need of a Savior than Gentiles. All of us are sinners, as Paul will explore more below in verses 15-21.

Peter knew this. Acts 10 records for us Peter’s realization that Gentiles are not to be considered unclean: “And [Peter] said to them, ‘You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean’” (Acts 10:28). Again, Peter says, “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34–35).

The gospel teaches that no person or group of people is to be called unclean, and Jews and Gentiles are united as brothers into the body of the Messiah. The first century Jewish believers therefore could consider themselves united with their Gentile brothers and sisters and live among them, sharing all things. So Peter began to live like a Gentile, that is, to have fellowship with Gentile believers, recognizing that all people, Jew and Gentile alike, are in need of a Savior and are saved only through Christ’s work on their behalf. Table fellowship is a way of living out the truth of this gospel message. It puts legs and feet on the doctrine of justification through faith alone.

Sadly, when the men from James arrived in Antioch (2:12), Peter changed his practice. He withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentile believers. His belief that people from all nations could come to God no longer matched his actions. Biblical scholar Tim Hegg comments,
Peter’s hypocrisy consisted of his having engaged in table fellowship with the Gentiles when unobserved by the Jerusalem folk, but separating from the Gentiles when the group from James arrived, and even compelling them to submit to proselytism in order to be accepted by the party of the circumcision (84-85).
When the men from Jerusalem arrived, Peter showed an inconsistency between his beliefs and his actions. Theologically, Peter embraced the gospel and thereby lived like a Gentile, but his theology failed to meet his practice. He claimed to believe one thing but acted contrary, the very definition of hypocrisy. Paul is adamant that the gospel must be lived out through how we treat each other.

This leads to our next question, What does it mean “to live like Jews”? Does it mean that Peter was wrongly requiring Gentiles to obey God's written instructions found in the Torah? Many have concluded this is what Peter was doing and that Paul takes a hard stand against it. However, the context suggests this is not the case. Let's look at the situation:

  1. Paul describes a scene in which Peter reverts to following a teaching of the Oral Law by refusing to eat with Gentiles. This is a teaching of man, not the Torah, and it is inconsistent with the basic gospel message.
  2. Peter does this under the pressure of the circumcision party, which taught circumcision was necessary for salvation. According to them, circumcision had to occur prior to acceptance by God. Again, this is a teaching of man, not the Torah, and is inconsistent with the basic gospel message.
  3. The focus here is on compelling, or forcing, Gentiles to live like Jews (2:14). This is thematically connected to those who were trying to compel Titus to be circumcised, described earlier in the chapter. The same Greek word root ἀναγκάζω (anagkazo) is used in 2:3 and 2:14, which means to force or compel.

Before we draw any conclusions, we should also consider how the word ἰουδαΐζειν (ioudaizein), translated “live like Jews” or “judaize” is used historically. In his commentary on Galatians, scholar Ben Witherington explains how Josephus used this unique word:
The word [ioudaizein] is a significant term which occurs nowhere else in the NT, meaning to adopt Jewish customs and practices ... In other words, the term focuses on the orthopraxy of early Judaism. This is clear enough from the use of the term in Josephus War 2.454 (159, emphasis ours).
According to Witherington, ioudaizein means adopting Jewish practices. Orthopraxy means putting doctrine into action, or how we live out what we believe. Sadly, Josephus details how forced circumcision was a practice at this time. Graham Harvey, in his The True Israel: Uses of the names Jew, Hebrew, and Israel in Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Literature discusses forced circumcision in Josephus' writings:
Ant. 11.284 is Josephus' version of Es 8:17, which he renders, “from fear of the [Jews] they had themselves circumcised and therefore managed to avoid danger.” The MT reads, “many from the peoples of the country מתיהדים [mityahadim; to become a Jew], for fear of the יהודים [yehudim; Jews] had fallen on them.” The LXX expands on this, “many of the Gentiles were circumcised and ἰουδαΐζειν [Judaized] for fear of the [Jews].” Commentators on the Hebrew text of Esther suggest that the occurrence of the word mityahadim is a reference to proselytism...The addition by the LXX of a reference to “circumcision” means that more is involved than “their support of Jewish interests.” In his narration here, Josephus avoids using the verb ἰουδαΐζειν [Judaize], implying that the action of the gentiles was not one of conversion but merely an attempt to save their lives by emulating those they feared. He does not say that they adopted any of the other defining activities of the [Jews]. In War 2.454 a Roman officer, Metilius, is spared in a massacre by the “rebels” in Jerusalem because he said he would be circumcised...This is not a willing conversion but of a Roman commander trying to save his own life...Life 113 is concerned with an attempt by [Jews] to compel two nobles from Tachonities to be circumcised as a condition of residence with them, not as a step in conversion. Josephus claims that he prevented this and protected the “refugees” by [the] argument “every one should worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience and not under constraint” (Life 113) and not be compelled to be circumcised forcibly to save their lives. This is probably “the betrayal of his country's Law which Jesus, the son of Sapphias, condemns Josephus for” (135).
From these sources, it is evident that Jewish historical accounts, and especially the Septuagint (LXX), relate “judaize” and forced circumcision. Nothing in the Torah compels Gentiles to be circumcised in order to become part of Israel. Rogue Jewish sectarians, however, are clearly seen to use forced circumcision as a means to show their control over Gentiles.

Circumcision was not initiated by God as a means to control and subjugate, but as an outward sign of an inward covenant (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4). However, from the earliest times, we see circumcision being used as a tool of manipulation by Abraham's descendants (Genesis 34:13ff). This use of circumcision as a means to control and subjugate brings trouble on Israel, making Israel “stink to the inhabitants of the land” (Genesis 34:30). Thus, Jewish historical accounts, along with the Genesis 34 narrative, offer insight into how Paul uses ioudaizein, as a coercive, rather than voluntary action.

What, then, can we conclude? Paul accuses Peter of submitting to the teachings of men (the Oral Law) as opposed to the teachings of God. Peter was refusing table fellowship with Gentile converts, unless they too would submit to the teachings of men, the teachings of the circumcision party. The circumcision party forced these converts to “live like Jews,” which Jewish historical accounts and Paul link with forced circumcision. Recall what the circumcision party was requiring as a prerequisite to salvation: forced circumcision (cf. Acts 15:1)! Most likely, Peter was denying fellowship with these fellow believers unless they became circumcised. He was forcing them to judaize.

Therefore, when Paul recounts the Antioch incident, he is not arguing against the written Torah. Furthermore, he is not discussing what is being eaten at these fellowship gatherings. The issue is not about clean and unclean foods, such as whether it was okay to eat pork or other animal flesh prohibited by the Torah. The words “unclean,” “clean,” or “food” are not even present in the text. The issue is about with whom one may fellowship (namely the uncircumcised Gentile believer). Paul is not saying that Gentiles can disobey the Torah. Rather, Paul strongly disputes obeying a teaching of the traditions/religions of men, which says Jews must separate themselves from and not eat with Gentiles. He disputes this man-made doctrine that Gentiles must first be circumcised before they can be accepted by God. He opposes forcing a Gentile who has accepted the gospel to judaize, that is to adopt the Jewish sectarian laws, traditions, and customs of the Oral Law, which were added by men to the Torah.

Not by Works of the Law (2:15-21)

In Paul's description of the Antioch incident (above), Paul rebukes Peter and the false brothers for their treatment of the Gentiles, in which they demand that Gentiles follow the customs of the Jews. The clearest example of this in the letter thus far is requiring circumcision as a prerequisite to salvation. Paul now spends time explaining the root issue of this problem, mainly that justification is not by our actions, but through our faith in the redemptive work of the Messiah:

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified (15-16).
In verse 15, Paul uses the first century mindset that Jews are not like Gentile sinners, in order to point out that such a mindset is inconsistent with the gospel: that a person is not justified by works of the law by through faith. (This is similar to how Peter’s actions were inconsistent with the gospel.)

Here we are introduced to the much debated phrase “works of the law.” In one sense, we could consider “works of the law” to be acts that are obedient to the Torah, God's written law. Paul would be right in saying that obedience to God's Torah does not justify you. That was never its intention, as seen in the pattern of Abraham (who was first justified by faith and then circumcised), as well as in the pattern of the Exodus (where God first redeemed his people from slavery and then gave them his instructions).

However, when we look at the context of first-century Judaism, we see that there is more to the phrase “works of the law” than simply obeying God's written Torah. Many do not realize that there is an entire designation in Jewish Oral Law called “works of the law” (in Hebrew, מעשׂה שׂהיה or ma'aseh sh'hayah). Once again, the Oral Law takes center stage in the issues Paul is combating. In the Oral Law, “works of the law” are the actions of earlier rabbis used as precedents for later Jews to follow. Consider this example:
A ma'aseh in which Rabban Gamaliel and the elders were traveling in a ship, when a Gentile made a ramp on which to descend, and Rabban Gamaliel, and the elders descended on it (Bab. Talmud, Shabbat 122a).
This is an example of ma'aseh rav, or precedent as teacher. If it was not a sin for Gamaliel to descend on a ramp made by Gentiles on the Sabbath, then it would not be a sin for us. Thus, the actions of the rabbinic sages, regardless of what they might be, are sufficient for us to follow with impunity.

Therefore, when Paul says we are not justified by works of the law, he is, at least in part, attacking the view that we must be obedient to the rules and customs of men, the “works of the law” (such as required circumcision for the Gentile convert), in order to be justified. This is wholly consistent with everything Paul has laid out in chapter one and the first part of chapter two in his letter to the Galatians.

Above is an example of “works of the law” found in Rabbinic Oral Law. But Pharisaic (Rabbinic) Judaism was not the only sect of Judaism to have a set of precedents and laws, which if one obeyed, one would be deemed “righteous.” Perhaps most significant are the writings of the Qumran sect, the Essenes, because they are so closely linked in wording to Paul's own writings.

In 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the caves of Qumran, a desert community west of the Dead Sea where many of the Essenes (a sect of Judaism) lived. This collection included not only Old Testament scriptures, but also commentary on how one was to obey God's Torah. In one of the caves, a manuscript named Miqsat Ma'ase haTorah (4QMMT—an acronym of the Hebrew words Miqsat Ma'ase haTorah) was found. Martin Abegg, a Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, explains that Ma'ase haTorah is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek phrase “ergon nomou” that Paul uses in Galatians and Romans, which is translated “works of the law.” Furthermore, Abegg points out that this phrase is used not just by both Paul and 4QMMT, but more significantly, it is used only in Paul and 4QMMT ("Paul, 'Works of the Law,' and MMT," Biblical Archaeological Review, November/December 1994). As Abegg says, “In all of antiquity, only [4QMMT] and Paul's Letters to the Galatians and Romans discuss the connections between works and righteousness” (Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, 358).

Just what were the “works of the law” in the Essene writings found in Qumran? Here is Abegg's description:
Following a thesis statement that identifies the central problem—the impure are being allowed to mix with the pure (the profane with the holy)—the author lists some two dozen examples to prove his point (B:3-C:4). The addressee (and secondarily, the reader) is then encouraged to follow the author: separate from those who practice such things (ibid).
The writer of 4QMMT is stressing the importance of not intermixing with the impure (i.e. the Gentiles) and lists a number of rules to prevent this mixing. Right away, this should resonate with the issues Paul is addressing in his letter to the Galatians. Remember the Antioch Incident described above. The false teachers in Galatia were teaching that Jewish believers were not to fellowship and eat with uncircumcised Gentile converts.

Yet the most significant part of the 4QMMT document comes in the writer's final exhortation:
Now, we have written to you some of the works of the Law, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people, because we have seen [that] you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these things and beseech Him to set your counsel straight and so keep you away from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before Him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel (ibid, 364, emphasis ours).
Here, the writer says that by obeying the works of the law set forth in 4QMMT, one would be counted as righteous. Abegg says, “The final exhortation presses home the author's true point: to be accounted righteous, one must obey the Law as interpreted in [4QMMT].” For this reason Abegg concludes, “Probably the 'false brethren' (Galatians 2:4) that Paul opposed held a doctrine on justification much like that of the present writing” (ibid, 359).

Our point in presenting these findings is not to say that the false brothers in Galatia were necessarily Essenes. Rather, it is to show that the doctrine of justification by works (including obeying man's interpretation and additions to God's written law) was present and active in first-century Judaism, despite the fact that the Torah does not teach justification by works. The Essenes held to this doctrine, and clearly Paul's opponents in Galatia did as well. Paul is not against obeying God's commands. Rather, Paul opposes the teaching of man that says you will be counted as righteous by your works.

In verses 15 and 16, Paul argues that Jewish election does not make you any less of a sinner than Gentiles. In verse 17, he concludes that we are all found out to be sinners:
But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor (17-18).
This raises several questions. First, how does our endeavor to be justified in Christ (as opposed to by works of the law) result in us being found to be sinners? Note that seeking justification in Christ does not make you a sinner, but rather it “finds you out” to be a sinner. In other words, it shows your sin. In what sense? Simply that, if you are seeking justification in Christ and not in your own works, you are admitting a need to be justified. You are admitting that your own works fall short of perfection. You are admitting that you sin, and therefore, your own deeds cannot save you. Recognizing you are a sinner is an action consistent with the truth of the gospel.

Second, does this realization that we are sinners make Christ a servant of sin? As Paul adamantly says, “Certainly not!” Paul shows that real servanthood to sin comes not from justification in Christ, but rather from justification by works. “For if I rebuild what I tore down” is a reference to the barrier between Jew and Gentile, created by man-made laws requiring separation. It is directly related to the Peter-Antioch incident earlier in the chapter. Peter essentially had begun to rebuild what he had torn down. At first he fellowshipped with Gentile converts (consistent with the gospel), but when some influential Jewish believers arrived, Peter removed himself lest he be criticized by them for violating the traditions of the fathers, or customs of the Jews (inconsistent with the gospel). Peter was swayed by his familiar traditions and customs that defined righteousness and began to rebuild the barrier. He began to submit to the works-based teachings that says you must do certain things before you can be justified. Because Peter rebuilt this barrier, Paul says he stood condemned (2:11). Peter proved himself to be a transgressor.

This leads to a third question: How does rebuilding and submitting to the teachings of man prove yourself to be a transgressor? When you submit to teachings of man that are contrary to the Word of God, you thereby disobey God’s Word. You become a transgressor. Peter had submitted to the teachings of the circumcision party and withdrew from fellowship with uncircumcised brothers in the Messiah. He had disobeyed the Torah and the gospel. He had disobeyed the Word of God. Therefore he was a sinner.

Further, we must remember, these teachings were works-based. They relied on works for justification. When you rely on works for justification, you will fail to be justified because you will break the law. All people fall short of obedience (Romans 3:23). You will prove yourself to be a transgressor.

Therefore, the essence of Paul's argument is that while justification in Christ may reveal our sin, it does not promote sin. Rather, justification by works promotes sin. When you rely on your own works, failure to be justified is the inevitable result. You will fail because all people sin – no one lives a sinless life. Instead, we must completely surrender our lives to Christ. Paul explains this in verses 19 to 21.

Dead to the Law and Alive to God

Here we find some of the most commonly used verses to show that God no longer requires our obedience to the Mosaic Law. Let's examine them in context to see if that is what Paul (and God) teaches:
For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose (19-21).
First, this passage emphasizes a death to myself. I died to the law, I have been crucified, I no longer live. This stands in opposition to a dependence on self, that is on my own works. Paul is once again showing that all those “works of the law” have not brought justification. My works cannot earn my salvation, and all they have amounted to is proving that I am a transgressor. But now in Christ, I have died to living for myself and depending on my own works, and now Christ lives in me. My justification is in him. I am made alive by Christ.

Second, there is an emphasis on our identity in Christ. I have been crucified with Christ, Christ lives in me, I live by faith in the Son of God. Whatever has occurred here, it has occurred through our identification with Christ. Because of his death, we too have died. Because of his life, we now also have life.

Paul says, “For through the law, I died to the law” (19). Let's consider in what sense our death to the law is through the law, or through the Torah.

The Torah testifies to the following things:

  1. Justification is not by works but by faith (with Abraham as Paul's main example, to come in chapter three). In other words, the Torah confirms that justification is not and never has been by works.
  2. The Torah is about the work of Christ. The Torah tells of mankind's need for Christ, and it creates a mural, picture upon picture, of the work that he would (and will) do. When Jesus walked with his disciples along the road to Emmaus after his resurrection, he explained the work of the Messiah that the scriptures foretold, beginning with Moses (the Torah) (Luke 24:27). We see the work of Christ in Genesis where Abraham is asked to sacrifice his only son, whom he loves (Genesis 22:2). We see the Messiah in Exodus, where the Israelites are commanded to sacrifice an unblemished lamb and place the blood upon the doorpost, that they might be passed over and their firstborn sons kept from death (Exodus 11 and 12). We see him in Leviticus, where sacrifices for sin are described in detail, calling attention to the ultimate sacrifice of God (Hebrews 10:12). Christ is our substitutionary atonement. Our sin is placed upon him. All of this and more is depicted in the Torah.

At this point, one might say, “Yes, I agree that the Torah depicts the work of Christ. But what does this have to do with the works-based teaching that Paul is attacking in his letter to the Galatians?” The answer is this: In the Torah, we see again and again that man cannot earn his way into a right relationship with God, and that because of sin, he can only come near to God through the blood of a substitute. Christ is this substitute. If, after recognizing our need for this substitute, we attempt to earn our salvation through our own works, we nullify the very work of Christ that the Torah depicts.

The irony is this: justification is not through the Torah, but in another sense, it is very much through the Torah. To clarify,

  1. Justification is not through the Torah in the sense that it is not by our own obedient works that we come into a right relationship with God. Our obedience to the Torah does not save us.

  2. Justification IS through the message of the Torah because the Torah confirms the pure gospel message:
    1. Justification is by faith and not works;
    2. Justification is through the blood of a substitute.

So ironically, if we fully depend on the work of Christ alone for justification, we actually approach God through the Torah, that is through the Torah's prescribed means of justification: through faith, by way of the blood of a substitute.

What we so often fail to see is that the Torah is full of grace. God did not start with works and then change to grace. He is a God of grace from first to last. The Torah is a message of grace. When Paul attacks justification by works, he is attacking a teaching of man, not the former teaching of God. Recall this from chapter one and the beginning of chapter two. Repeatedly Paul attacks the teachings of man, such as those in the Oral Law. We have already discussed the Antioch incident above where Peter submitted to an Oral Law teaching that Jews must not fellowship with uncircumcised Gentiles. This is not in the Torah. This is not grace. Rather, the Torah teaches the opposite.

This is why Paul can say, “For through the law, I died to the law.” Paul is saying, “For through the confirmation of the Torah that justification is not by works AND through the Torah's testimony of the substitutionary work of Christ, I died to the law.”

This leads to the second part of this complex verse: “I died to the law.” Many say this means we no longer need to be obedient to God's commands. Based on what we have learned so far, would the following idea make sense?

For through the law, I no longer need to obey the law.

Remember “through the law” refers to the Torah's teaching of grace. “Through the law” reminds us that justification is not by works. “Through the law” reminds us that we are accepted before God by the blood of a substitute. It simply does not follow that because the Torah confirms that we are justified by faith, that we then do not have to obey it. Nor does it make sense that because the Torah testifies to the work of Christ, we no longer need to obey it. Rather, the opposite makes more sense:

Because the Torah confirms we are justified by faith, I will obey it wholeheartedly as a response to the grace of God!

Because the Torah testifies to the work of Christ, I will obey it and also be a testimony through my actions to all God has done and will do for me!

Clearly, Paul cannot be saying that we are free to disobey God's commands, for it simply doesn't follow from his premise “for through the law.” So what is he saying? We know the context of Galatians two is that justification is not by works of the law. “Justification by works of the law” is a teaching of man, not God. Therefore, we can logically conclude that “I died to the law” means “I died to justification by works of the law.” Now consider Galatians 2:19 with this new understanding:

For through the law, I died to [my false belief in and reliance upon] justification by works.

In other words: For through the teachings of the Torah, I died to the belief that my obedience to the Torah can save me.

If we recognize and confirm all that the Torah says is true (that the Torah teaches justification is not by works but by faith and that we need the blood of a substitute), then the teaching of man that says otherwise is put to death.

The last part of verse 19 reads, “that I might live to God.” This is what we receive when we accept the gospel message. When we are justified by faith in Christ, we receive an abundant life that lives for God.

Verse 19 in summary might read:

For through the original gospel message taught in the Torah itself that justification is by faith alone and not by works, I died to the man-made teaching that seeks justification through my own works, so that I might be justified by faith, receiving new life for God’s glory.

Let's follow the remainder of Paul's argument:
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (2:20).
Here Paul stresses that our life (justification/salvation) is not through our own works but through the work of Christ--his death and resurrection. We are justified because we identify with him, not because of anything we have done, which is what the Torah has testified to from the beginning. This leads to verse 21:
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose (21).
Again, the context makes clear that “righteousness through the law” means “righteousness through our own works of the law.” If righteousness (justification/salvation) could be obtained through our own works, then Christ would not have needed to die. This would nullify the grace of God, which essentially nullifies the Torah. Why? Because the Torah proclaims this grace. Remember, the Torah both testifies that justification is by faith and testifies to the work of Christ. Paul does not speak against the Torah. He speaks against using the Torah, or any works, for the purpose of justification. This misuse of works is what nullifies God's grace and the Torah itself. As Paul says in verse 14, it is not in step with the truth of the gospel.

The Galatians situation is ironic indeed. The Torah teaches the gospel message. Yet the Jews had turned the Torah on its heels, using it as a means of superiority and separation, thereby denying the gospel message that the Torah proclaims. Paul will have none of it.


1 Phillip Esler, who has written an exhaustive study on understanding first-century Christian documents from a sociological and anthropological perspective, argues that the Jubilees 22:16 prohibition was absolute and universal (62ff). Pauline scholar E.P. Sanders disputes this using the Letter to Aristeas, showing that such sharing of meals took place (170-188, 1990). Sanders maintains the issue was more food centered than that of social interaction, stating “there was no barrier to social intercourse with Gentiles as long as one did not eat their meat and drink their wine” (178, 1990). Whether the prohibition was absolute and universal or whether it was sectarian to the more stringent followers of Shammai is unknown. However, from the testimony of Peter in Acts 10:28, it would suggest that Peter's view prior to his vision was more aligned to the absolute universal position. Regardless of how one views the prohibition, the significance is that this prohibition is not found in the Torah. It is a prohibition of the man-made oral law.