Made Right with God through Christ Alone (2:15–21)

Galatians 1:13–2:21

Narrative Defense of the Gospel (1:13–2:21)

Not surprisingly, Paul’s narration of his own past experiences shares many features with ancient autobiographic material. Luke’s narratives in Acts 9, 22, and 26 helpfully fill in many details missing here, but they are missing here precisely because here Paul is focused on defending his gospel. (See the chart at Gal. 1:19.) The entire narrative section (1:13–2:14 or 2:21) almost certainly follows chronological sequence.

Although normally despised, self-praise was considered justifiable under appropriate circumstances. Introductory narratives summarizing the events leading up to the matter under discussion were common, including in defense speeches and deliberative speeches as well as other genres. Yet Paul has interests other than simply following the usual conventions for autobiographic summaries. Narratives could perform multiple functions, including functioning paradigmatically, as examples (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11). Paul surely wants his hearers to identify with him and his mission, of which they are some of the early fruit.

As noted in the commentary introduction, Paul responds to the suspicion that his calling is subordinate to and dependent on the apostles who knew Jesus during his earthly ministry. He accordingly also reestablishes his ἦθος (ēthos), which is necessary for his credibility.

Contrary to some modern Western religious approaches, Paul readily argues here from experience, both his own (1:11–2:14) and that of the Galatians (3:1–5). These experiences are, however, incontrovertible ones—the Galatians’, because it was their own, and Paul’s, because it was not purely subjective. Paul does not provide all the details of his conversion and calling in 1:13–16, but he does not need to; they have all heard his story before (you’ve already heard, 1:13).

Paul experienced visions (2 Cor. 12:1–4), apparently not unusual in early Christianity (Acts 2:17), but he distinguishes the more distinctive experience to which he alludes here from his typical visions. Paul believes that he met the risen Christ in the same way that other apostles and witnesses had (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8), and he envisions resurrection as involving the body in some way (σῶμα, sōma; 1 Cor. 6:13–14; 15:44; Phil. 3:21). Luke describes Paul’s experience in terms of heavenly glory (Acts 9:3; 22:6, 9, 11; 26:13), fitting Luke’s other descriptions of such experiences (Luke 2:9; Acts 12:7) and probably his narrative theology (Luke 2:32; Acts 13:47; 26:18, 23). Luke’s depiction nevertheless also comports with Paul’s understanding of resurrection in terms of glorified bodies (1 Cor. 15:40, 44; Phil. 3:21; cf. Rom. 8:18, 30), which might suggest an experience of the risen Lord more like John’s in Rev. 1:13–17 than the experiences reported in Luke 24:13–43 and the other Gospels.

Paul attributes his gospel to this experience (Gal. 1:11–12). Scholars may debate how much of Paul’s theology derived from this initial experience, but certainly it transformed Paul’s perspective on key concepts: God had raised Christ as the forerunner of all who would be raised from among the dead. God had glorified him and exalted him as cosmic Lord. Paul also experienced the promised eschatological Spirit soon after this (cf. Acts 9:17; 1 Cor. 14:18), and all of this experience together challenged his zeal for his previous understanding of the Torah.

The most emphatic point in Galatians is that Christ commissioned Paul to reach gentiles (Gal. 1:16; cf. Acts 9:15; 13:47; 22:21; 26:17). This was no mere subjective sentiment on Paul’s part, or even a conception that he would have initially embraced (cf. perhaps Gal. 5:11); it was a commission directly from the risen Messiah and Lord. Galatian Christians could not question Paul’s call to gentiles, for they were among the fruits of that call.

A CLOSER LOOK: CONVERSION

Scholarship has offered a range of explanations for Paul’s conversion as alternatives or supplements to theistic ones. Scholars also debated whether Paul was neurotic or a genius. Enlightenment scholars often attributed Paul’s conversion experience to hallucination or psychological abnormality. Psychoanalytic approaches of his experience were once common; whatever the merits of psychoanalysis for living persons, however, it is quite precarious for use on the dead, particularly given the limited information we possess.

Various psychological studies helpfully cite Western patterns of conversion, but in some respects Paul’s experience does not adequately fit the grid. Exclusively psychological explanations have usually faltered partly due to their following of widely circulated premises that contradict textual evidence, such as positing Paul’s alleged guilty feelings for persecution (contrast Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:6) or positing myths about Jewish legalism once promulgated by NT scholars.

Among scholars of antiquity, Arthur Darby Nock, who compared philosophic conversion, followed the earlier psychological approach to conversion, in contrast to the social (corporate influence) dimension often preferred today. Although the preestablished categories of interest often remain limited, recent decades have shifted toward sociological models of conversion because they claim to be more quantifiable.

Conversion accounts were familiar in antiquity. Some were conversions to philosophy; others included new ethnic allegiance, as in the case of proselytes to Judaism, but both involved drastic lifestyle changes. Ancients also recounted experiences with gods and angels, so even those who did not share Paul’s convictions could allow that he had a genuine superhuman encounter (cf. Acts 23:9). Some scholars today account for Paul’s encounter in terms of Jewish merkabah mysticism, but Paul’s letters do not reveal a preconversion penchant toward mysticism, and his own accounts of the encounter more closely resemble OT call narratives. Paul himself distinguishes his personal encounter with the resurrected Christ (1 Cor. 15:8) from his later visions (2 Cor. 12:1).

It is anachronistic to imagine that Paul “converted” from “Judaism” to “Christianity.” Nevertheless, Paul was converted to a new course of life and from one Jewish sect to another. Some question whether converting from one sect to another is actually conversion, but this seems to me a semantic question based more on modern conflicts than ancient ones. (E. P. Sanders thus efficiently resolves the dispute over whether Paul’s call was also a conversion simply by defining the terms in question.)

Using the sociological definition of conversion, Paul was converted. In contrast to those who argue that Paul was only converted or only called, he was both converted (Phil. 3:4–11) and called (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8–11; Gal. 1:11–23). Luke, who sandwiches his first narration of Paul’s experience between the accounts of the African treasurer’s conversion and that of Cornelius, certainly viewed it as both (Acts 8:26–10:48). Converts typically view their preconversion lives through a postconversion lens, and Paul is no exception (cf. Phil. 3:4–14, esp. 3:13). Whatever other analogies we find helpful, Paul’s experience transformed him from persecuting a new sect to joining it.

God Reveals the Gospel to Paul (1:13–17)

1:13

13For you’ve already heard about my previous devotion to Judean customs. That is, I was viciously persecuting God’s community and trying to wipe it out.

Given the discussion that Paul will soon undertake (see esp. 2:14), he has good reason to explain his former lifestyle in the terms he will employ in 1:13–14. When Paul speaks of his previous devotion to Judean customs in terms of persecuting God’s church, he does not mean Judaism per se, as some modern readers might wrongly infer from the similarity of the Greek term’s (Ἰουδαϊσμός, Ioudaismos) sound to “Judaism.” While it may be true that some early Christians offended against widely held elements of Jewish belief, such as the temple (cf. Acts 6:13–14; 7:48–50), the term translated here as Judaism here refers not to a former ethnicity or faith, as if Paul became a gentile or stopped following the God of Israel when he became a Christian. It refers to Jewish practice and appears especially in contexts of nationalistic resistance against foreign cultural impositions (2 Macc. 2:21; 8:1; 14:38), even when some tried to “compel” abandonment of Jewish practice (4 Macc. 4:26). The cognate verb refers to gentiles practicing Jewish customs—the divine value of which Paul might have welcomed in his former life but now fiercely opposes (Gal. 2:14).

Lest anyone suppose that Paul’s command of the Greek language contradicts this background, 1 and 2 Maccabees, both hailing nationalist martyrs, were written in Greek, and 4 Maccabees praises them even while adapting Greek philosophy. Paul’s background could provide him with Greek language, but one would hardly expect it to condition him for a call to welcome uncircumcised gentiles!

Persecuting (Greek verb διώκω, diōkō, 1:13, 23) foreshadows what Paul’s rivals are doing spiritually to Galatians who hold to the truth (4:29). At the time, Paul undoubtedly saw himself as following the model of the Maccabees, who pursued or persecuted (diōkō) those who broke (1 Macc. 2:47; 3:5) or militarily opposed (3:24; 5:22; 10:49) God’s law. They courageously fought for the Jewish way of life (Ἰουδαϊσμός, Ioudaismos) and pursued their foes (2 Macc. 2:21). Some Jews persecuted some of Jesus’s followers in this period (1 Thess. 2:14–16), as some Jews also repressed other minority Jewish sects.

Yet ironically, what Paul persecuted was God’s community, which at the time his persecution started was probably mostly near Jerusalem. The term I translate here as community (usually, “church”) can refer to any assembly (how I translated it earlier), but the assembly of God in the OT was the community of his people Israel (see, e.g., Judg. 20:2; 1 Chron. 28:8), to which some kinds of foreigners could not belong (Deut. 23:3, 8; Neh. 13:1). Blinded by nationalistic zeal to purify the Lord’s own community, Paul had in fact been opposing that community! He had been pleasing some among his people, but not his God (Gal. 1:10).

Paul adds that he was trying to wipe it out (using πορθέω, portheō). Yet this was what a persecutor of God’s people might do (cf. portheō in 4 Macc. 4:23; 11:4), while murdering those who circumcised their sons and torturing Jews to force them to eat unclean foods and to renounce the Jewish way of life (4 Macc. 4:25–26)! Noting his later views, some scholars suggest that Paul once viewed Christ as a rival to the Torah, or that he himself originated the use of Deut. 21:22–23 (Gal. 3:13) against Christians. Such psychological probing has its place, but we can be far more certain of what Paul tells us directly. In his zeal to defend Jewish traditions, Paul had acted like those remembered for repressing Jewish tradition!

1:14

14Likewise, I was progressing in commitment to Jewish customs beyond many of my peers among my people, showing far more zeal for my ancestral traditions.

In 1:14, Paul declares that he was progressing . . . beyond many of [his] peers (cf. NRSV: “people of the same age”).

A CLOSER LOOK: ADVANCING BEYOND PEERS

Progressing in 1:14 renders the Greek term προκόπτω, prokoptō. This idea of making progress naturally appears often in discussions of education, and became very prominent in discussions of virtue. Paul’s terminology would resonate with Hellenistic culture. Because Stoic philosophers often spoke in terms of ideal types, many other thinkers assumed that they rejected the concept of degrees of virtue and vice. Other philosophers thus felt the need to argue that one could make progress in virtue. By this period, however, Stoics clearly acknowledged that one could make progress toward the ideal. Some scholars envision Paul echoing this sort of usage in Phil. 1:25.

Members of peer groups often became lifelong friends, and teachers often encouraged competition among students to stimulate greater achievement. Being ahead of one’s contemporaries in education was a natural basis for praise. Romans who advanced in their careers faster than their contemporaries boasted about this. As an adult, Josephus claims that even his contemporaries admitted that he was advanced far beyond them in learning. Unusually rapid advancement sometimes aroused surprise and envy, and it was dishonorable for elders to be instructed or outdone by those younger than they. Acts portrays Paul similarly, already a leader as a young man, with access to the high priest (Acts 7:58; 9:1–2). As in Phil. 3:4–6, Paul here uses the language of honor competition, an honor that he no longer values (Gal. 1:10; 2:6; Phil. 3:7–8).

Paul’s training was not, however, in philosophy, nor his advance in Roman aristocratic career ranks. His focus was his ancestral traditions (1:14). This sort of advance would have made him a young person of note in Jerusalem, where wisdom was typically defined by prowess in Israel’s ancestral laws. In describing his own background as a child prodigy, Josephus notes how he quickly advanced (using προκόπτω, prokoptō) in learning. As a result, he claims, civic leaders and aristocratic priests consulted his meticulous knowledge of the law even when he was just fourteen, and he began experimenting with Pharisaism at age nineteen.

Advanced translates the Greek term prokoptō; it can refer to any progress, including advancing in education or learning. Philosophers often used it to speak of the philosophically enlightened advancing toward perfection. For Philo, someone advancing would go beyond the elementary stage of “Hagar” learning. Only after his conversion did Paul realize that his own prior learning dealt with merely elementary matters (Gal. 4:3, 9; see comment on Hagar in 4:24–25).

That Paul was advancing beyond many of [his] peers makes sense, since Hellenistic education involved peer groups based especially on age. Writers sometimes boasted that they or others had been advanced for their age—that is, prodigies. Still, people often associated youth not only with vigor but also with violence, which fits some of Paul’s activity in this context.

The focus of Paul’s training was in imbibing his ancestral traditions (1:14). The term translated as traditions normally refers to what is passed on and received (to be passed on again). Pharisees were known for their meticulous faithfulness to ancestral traditions. Both Paul (Phil. 3:5; cf. Acts 23:6) and at least some advocates for gentile circumcision (Acts 15:5) were Pharisees, and Paul would have gotten his Pharisaic training in Jerusalem, where Pharisees predominated. Ancestral traditions (Gal. 1:14) are not inherently negative, but they are passed on from other human beings, in contrast to the gospel that he received, which isn’t a human idea (1:11). In the present context, Paul’s zeal for them probably also implies nationalistic fervor.

Paul’s reference in 1:14 to zeal might evoke ideas associated with his persecuting activities in 1:13. The Greek term here is ζηλωτής (zēlōtēs). The term is not inherently negative, including in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 14:12). From Paul’s perspective as a Jesus follower, zeal, including for the law, may be commendable, but not if it is based on a false understanding (Rom. 10:2). Judean believers were ζηλωταί (zēlōtai) for the law (Acts 21:20). A wise young person would show zeal and make progress in wisdom by following the law meticulously (Sir. 51:13, 17–19, using three of Paul’s key terms in Gal. 1:14).

Nevertheless, violence characterized Paul’s early role as ζηλωτής (Acts 22:3; his zeal in Phil. 3:6). In that respect, Paul was like those who associated ζηλωτής with the law in a violent way: following the traditions of the Maccabees, they were zealous for the purity of their ancestral customs against contamination from sinful, foreign ways.

Zeal for the law could be aroused by others’ disobedience (Ps. 119:139; cf. Ps. 69:9). Philo praises the zeal of the Israelites who slew their fellow Israelites for idolatry. He also praises those who express zeal for the laws in his own day by their readiness to execute those who break them. Various models of zeal, such as that of Elijah, were used to support violent suppression of sin in the land.

Most influential was Phinehas’s act of “zeal,” which appeased God’s “zeal” (in its other sense as jealousy), in the noun’s first use in the LXX (Num. 25:11–13). Other texts plainly use the zeal of Phinehas as a model. Philo takes Phinehas’s zeal as a model for angrily dispatching even gentile transgressors without trial. (Not that Philo would have thought to follow it.) A Qumran document might use him as a model for opposing intermarriage with gentiles. The Maccabees took his zeal as a biblical model for their own zeal for God’s law expressed in revolt.

The Maccabees themselves became models of zeal, including for the Zealots, one of the militant nationalist groups during the impending Judean revolt. Josephus associates negative zeal with robbers or social bandits, whom he ultimately depicts as the main cause of the Judean revolt of 66. By that time, some revolutionaries claimed special zeal and therefore called themselves Zealots.

Many scholars believe that the Maccabees’ and Phinehas’s “zeal” for God, which led to violence, is the model for Paul’s pre-Christian persecution of Christians. Some argue that Paul even claimed to be a zealot of sorts. Such zeal was not impossible for a Pharisee like Paul (Phil. 3:5–6), though many Pharisees valued peace. Probably around or shortly before Paul’s birth, Judas the Galilean, author of the Judean revolutionary movement, recruited a Pharisaic colleague and was himself Pharisaic in his outlook except for his violent nationalism. Without using the term “zeal,” Josephus also describes two Pharisaic teachers who encouraged their young disciples to challenge Herod’s foreign eagle decoration on the temple, leading to their martyrdom.

Scholars debate whether a specific party named “Zealots” existed as early as Galatians, but whenever that party emerged, it probably reflects the same ideal of nationalistic zeal that Paul did. Paul may link his zeal (Gal. 1:14) with persecuting (1:13), as in Phil. 3:6 (cf. also Acts 22:3–4). This was probably directed especially against those who undermined nationalistic agendas, such as he understood Hellenist Jewish Christians to be doing (Acts 6:13–14; 8:1–3; 11:19–20). His family’s Diaspora background may have made Paul (and possibly other members of his family) all the more eager to identify with their Judean heritage.

1:15

15But when God—who had set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me through his abundant generosity—was pleased

Paul’s vision of Christ includes a call, as often in the earlier biblical prophets. As nearly all commentators recognize, Paul’s from my mother’s womb and called echoes Isa. 49:1 and Jer. 1:5. The dominant Greek version of Isa. 49:1 uses precisely the same words for from my mother’s womb and the indicative form of called. Jeremiah 1:5 includes the words womb and from [my] mother but additionally speaks of the calling to be “a prophet to the nations,” just as Paul in Gal. 1:16 is called to announce the good news about him among the gentiles (ἔθνη, ethnē, the same Greek word also translated as “nations”). Although most of Jeremiah’s oracles to nations were probably not circulated among those nations (though cf. Jer. 27:3), Paul was actually an apostle to the nations (Rom. 11:13).

Far from being accidental echoes of biblical language, these passages reflect something of Paul’s self-understanding of his mission. Some scholars find allusions to Jeremiah’s call in Paul’s call also in Acts 9:15–16; Acts 26:18 alludes to Isa. 42:6–7 (perhaps by way of 49:6); and in Acts 13:47, Luke reports Paul exposing his first audience in the province of Galatia to Isa. 49:6.

Instead of simply noting that God called Paul from his mother’s womb, Paul adds set apart, which resembles Jeremiah’s “consecrated” (Jer. 1:5), although Paul employs a different Greek term. (By way of contrast, Sir. 49:7 employs the same term for Jeremiah’s consecration that appears in LXX Jer. 1:5.) Paul’s language of set apart, or “separate,” also made sense as a way of speaking of one’s birth (Gen. 25:23), but it is not the term that the LXX uses, nor is it a common Greek expression.

Paul has a special reason to employ this different term, however; it contrasts here with the same Greek term in 2:12 (its only other use in Galatians), where Peter separates from gentiles. By contrast, God separated Paul from his mother’s womb (i.e., allowing him to be born), ultimately for the purpose of reaching gentiles, setting him apart for his mission for the gospel (Rom. 1:1, using the same term). The God who graces with life is also the God who graces with mission; Paul’s mission was, originally unknown to Paul, the purpose for which he was born.

In keeping with this context, Paul was thus called through God’s abundant generosity, or “grace” (1:15), by God’s initiative rather than by Paul’s prior zeal for his people’s traditions (1:14). God had likewise called the Galatian believers by abundant generosity, or “grace” (1:6). One might rightly understand an obeyed commission as a promise (compare Gen. 35:11; 48:4).

1:16

16to reveal his Son in me, so that I might announce the good news about him among the gentiles, my first action was not to check with any human being.

Scholars debate the precise sense of 1:16’s first clause. Did God graciously reveal Christ in Paul (ASV, NASB, NET text, NIV, WEB), by him, or to him (NRSV, ESV text)? The Greek term ἐν (en) here often means “in” or “by,” and the same ambiguity between those two options appears elsewhere when Paul uses it with “reveal.” Because all three renderings are true in Paul’s thought, a decision here is both difficult on the one hand and probably unnecessary on the other.

Paul received his gospel through Jesus Christ being revealed to him (1:12). Similarly, in Paul’s ministry to the gentiles, God’s Son is revealed in Paul (2:20) and thereby revealed through him (2:8; cf. Phil. 4:9). God’s Son was revealed in Paul so that people could witness Christ’s life and suffering in Paul (Gal. 2:20; 3:1; 6:14–15, 17; 2 Cor. 4:6, 10–12); God’s Son likewise would be revealed in all believers (Gal. 4:6, 19; 5:22–23), who are thus also God’s “sons” (i.e., children; 3:26; 4:7).

What is clear is that this revelation is followed by a purpose clause: God revealed his Son in Paul not primarily for Paul’s sake, but so that I might announce the good news about him among the gentiles. The term translated as announce here (εὐαγγελίζω, euangelizō) is the verb form of bringing the gospel, the good news revealed to Paul (Gal. 1:11) and by which God had called them (1:6).

Proclaiming Jesus to gentiles was Paul’s direct commission (1:16); it was not what the Jerusalem apostles were doing, so there was no need to consult them (1:16–17). This information also means that the Galatians belonged to Paul’s commission—not to that of the Jerusalem apostles (2:7–9; cf. Rom. 1:13; 11:13). Thus announce the good news about him among the gentiles (Gal. 1:16) echoes the good news . . . we announced to you (1:8), the good news that the Galatians received (1:9) and that isn’t a human idea (1:11).

The agitators may claim that Paul’s gospel was secondary to that of Jerusalem’s true apostles, and that the agitators, by contrast, reflected a more direct connection with those true apostles. Paul, however, dismisses the value of the credentials in which his critics boast. He emphasizes that he did not even confer with humans, including those apostles, at the beginning (Gal. 1:16–17). Paul employs the term translated as check just one other time in his extant letters (indeed, in biblical Greek), and that instance belongs to this introductory narrative: Jerusalem’s chief apostles added nothing more to his gospel (2:6). Just as Paul obeyed God and did not confer with any human being (1:16; cf. 1:1, 11–12), so he expected the Galatians to value their own experience of the Spirit over his rivals’ message emphasizing flesh (3:1–5).

The Greek phrase rendered as any human being (σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι, sarki kai haimati) could be translated as “flesh and blood,” a not uncommon expression for mortal humanity, and one that contrasts with what is eternal (1 Cor. 15:50). The term check (προσανατίθημι, prosanatithēmi) can mean to “consult” for a more qualified interpretation, but in view of Paul’s repeated emphasis it is no coincidence that it also can mean “contribute, add to”; that is, Paul did not depend on others to either provide or add to his gospel. That is the term’s sense in its only other biblical or extant early Christian use—in Gal. 2:6. As Chrysostom noted, Paul is implying that he did not get his message from the other apostles (1:18–19). Indeed, like Peter (Matt. 16:17), who is Paul’s peer (Gal. 2:7), Paul did not depend on flesh and blood for his understanding of the gospel.

Some interpreters today respect Scripture yet insist on a religious experience that is exclusively textually focused, devoid of further experience. Paul honored the biblical text (see Gal. 3:6–5:1), but he insisted also on the reality of experience with God to which biblical texts bear witness. Paul thus appeals to both his own experience (1:13–16) and that of his hearers (3:1–5; 4:13–14; cf. 1 Cor. 2:1–5; 2 Cor. 3:1–3).

1:17

17Nor did I travel up to Jerusalem to those who were already [Christ’s] commissioned agents before me. Instead, I left for Arabia [the region where the Nabatean Arabs live]; after that I came back to Damascus.

Jews outside Jerusalem (1:17) accorded Jerusalem special respect, and even travelers from there might be given special respect because they originated from there. Paul may have initially commanded some respect in Galatia because he came from Judea (see Acts 13:15), though such background would not help him in the present conflict because his rivals also likely hailed from there (cf. Acts 15:1; 2 Cor. 11:22). Paul instead emphasizes his independence from Jerusalem; what his foes would have meant as a criticism he turns to his advantage. Far from immediately seeking instruction from Jerusalem, Paul in fact remained far away, in Arabia.

Yet Arabia, the land of the Arabs, encompassed a vast breadth of territory. Scholars thus debate which part Paul means here. Does he refer to the Arabia of Mount Sinai, as in Paul’s only other mention of Arabia (Gal. 4:25), or, as most scholars think, to the lands of Nabatean Arabs especially to the southeast of Damascus? (Some scholars believe that Damascus itself was under Nabatean control at this time, but the mention of the Nabatean king Aretas’s ethnarch in Damascus in 2 Cor. 11:32 need only suggest that Damascus had a significant Nabatean presence.) Luke offers us no direct help here; he either did not know of Paul’s time there or deems it too irrelevant to his narrative to recount it; such compression or omission was acceptable historical and rhetorical practice.

Geographically speaking, it seems far more probable that Paul remained relatively nearby in Nabatea before “returning to” Damascus (1:17). As E. P. Sanders observes, it probably would have taken Paul over a month and roughly four hundred miles to trudge from Damascus to Sinai, and he would have had to travel with a caravan or equip an expedition that could carry food and water and protect against bandits. Nabatean Arabia, meanwhile, was comparatively next door. Moreover, Paul did something significant among Nabateans, since ethnarchs did not normally hunt down random passersby (2 Cor. 11:32–33, an occasion also near Damascus, so probably chronologically related to the one in Gal. 1:17). There is little reason for Paul to have returned to Damascus in particular afterward unless it was nearby.

Nabatea was included in the title Arabia in the first century. Josephus spoke of Sinai as lying between Egypt and Arabia, but he identified Petra, the leading city of Nabatea, as the chief city of Arabia; the Nabatean king Aretas was king of Petra and Arabia; and Nabateans were among the residents of Arabia.

Why Arabia? Did Paul go to Arabia to check with God rather than with any human being (1:16)? Or did Paul go there, as a majority of scholars think, to begin his mission to announce Christ among the gentiles (also 1:16)? As we see in Acts, Paul often located gentiles who were open initially through association with synagogues, and Nabatea certainly had a significant Jewish community. Luther, as usual, left no doubt of his view on the subject: “It is silly for Jerome to ask what Paul did in Arabia. What else would he have done but preach Christ?”

Paul is explicit that after Jerusalem (1:18) he preached in Syria and Cilicia (1:21–23), but he does not specify what he did before visiting Jerusalem. In a less polemical but also less detailed context, Paul later recounts starting his mission from Jerusalem (Rom. 15:19), but that may reflect Jerusalem’s theological centrality rather than Paul preaching nowhere before Jerusalem. Yet if Paul understood his mission partly in line with that of Isaiah’s servant (note again the echo of Isa. 49:1 in Gal. 1:15), nearby Nabatea may have been a tempting mission field, if he construed Isaiah’s Kedar and Nebaioth (Isa. 42:11; 60:7) as Nabatea, as Josephus did. Whether Paul evangelized Jews or Nabateans or both in Nabatea, he probably preached within Nabatea to Judea’s south and east, as in Syria and Cilicia to the north (Gal. 1:21).

Paul clearly did something active to provoke the hostility of the Nabatean ethnarch in Damascus (2 Cor. 11:32–33), and that was probably what Luke suggests that he also did to provoke the hostility of Judeans in Damascus and Jerusalem: preaching (cf. Acts 9:19–24). No letters survive from this period in Paul’s ministry, and we have no evidence of Paul’s success, but he certainly did not go unnoticed.

Nevertheless, it may be no coincidence that the only two mentions of Arabia in the NT appear in this letter; like Moses (cf. 2 Cor. 3:7–18), Paul has received revelation, and he knows the limitations of the land of the Ishmaelites (encompassing all Arabia) better than do his opponents (Gal. 4:24–25). Although Paul’s actual Arabia is further north than Sinai, for the Galatians it may still evoke Sinai.

Some suggest that Nabatean opposition turned Paul west, toward Rome; but Paul’s Roman citizenship and facility in Greek probably made the Roman Empire a more natural venue for his mission anyway.

A CLOSER LOOK: NABATEAN ARABIA

Traditional Nabateans

Josephus makes Nabatean Arabs his prime example of Ishmaelites. Nabateans began as a small tribe but surpassed other Arab tribes because they could procure water in the desert, and they controlled a caravan route that stretched especially to Damascus in the northeast and beyond Sinai in the southwest.

Some stereotypes of Nabateans were negative; if such labels contained any truth, they might suggest that Paul could have faced difficulties among them. Many Nabateans had become pirates and brigands until suppressed by Roman soldiers in Syria; Pliny thought that half remained brigands while the other half engaged in trade. Strabo complained that they deliberately deceived and misled the Romans, until a deceptive guide was beheaded; not good fighters, they were, he contended, “hucksters and merchants.”

Nabatea and Damascus

“Arabs” traditionally lived outside Damascus, especially in the mountainous regions; the “Arabian mountains” stood above Damascus. Paul’s forays into “Arabia” could have gone much further than this. Some ancient writers included in “Arabia” (a term often used broadly) not only traditional Nabatea but also all the cities of the Decapolis. Although Pompey politically “liberated” the Decapolis from Nabatean and Judean rule, the ties remained, and Trajan incorporated the region into a new Roman province called Arabia in 106 CE. Especially if Paul spent time among urban Nabateans, he may have passed through the cities of the Decapolis. The entire area to the east of Judea could be described as Arabia.

Excavations show a Nabatean quarter within Damascus, the name of which was preserved as late as the fourteenth century; it lay in the northeastern part of the city. Nabateans had trading colonies in Gerasa and elsewhere, and the ethnarch (2 Cor. 11:32; not “governor,” pace NRSV) would be leader of Nabatea’s trading colony in Damascus, who could represent Nabatean interests. (Just as the “ethnarch” of Jewish people in Alexandria did not rule all Alexandria, but only its massive Jewish population, we would expect the ethnarch for Nabatea in Damascus to govern only the significant community of Nabateans there.)

Aretas IV, Nabatea’s king, and Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, had a conflict that would have destroyed Antipas’s kingdom were it not for Roman intervention. Nabatea remained powerful in the early Roman Empire, and tensions between Aretas and Antipas made Jewish-Nabatean cooperation all the more important. Such tensions may have also made the meddling of a Jewish preacher like Paul more problematic, if that was what Paul was doing.

Paul’s Business in Nabatea

Despite Nabatea’s topography, travel in much of the Decapolis would have been facilitated by an adequate road system. Petra itself lay on (hence controlled) two major routes, the one from Palmyra to Syria and the other leading to Gaza. Nabatea had grown in prosperity, as may be illustrated by excavations of one spacious mansion (over 1,100 square meters) with a scenic view.

If Paul’s ministry began in Nabatea, it could have targeted fellow Jews. The Babatha archive and other Jewish sources employ not only Aramaic and Greek but also Nabatean, demonstrating significant Jewish and Nabatean contact in the region. The entire Decapolis area’s “Hellenistic Jewish communities . . . with their God-fearing Gentile associates would have been attractive contexts for his ministry.”

Nabateans themselves may have offered a more difficult beginning, being polytheistic. Strabo reports that they daily worshiped the sun, offering libations and incense on housetop altars. Perhaps more dependably, the earliest extant Nabatean Aramaic inscriptions are religious, in a shrine honoring an earlier king Aretas in 168 BCE; a number of Nabatean temples remain, including one with dining halls and anthropomorphic statues of deities. At least by the early second century, a period of greater Roman control in the region, the Roman emperor was also worshiped in Petra.

Language might also pose a potential barrier, though Paul could have found people who understood him. Although most Nabatean inscriptions are in a Nabatean form of Aramaic, Nabateans seem to have traditionally spoken an ancient dialect of Arabic, attested in their names; other inscriptions, however, are in Greek. By the early second century CE, Greek “replaced Nabatean as the official language,” and hellenization began before this. If Paul ministered among them, he probably focused on their more hellenized cities.

That Paul after that . . . came back to Damascus indicates that after his conversion he left for Nabatea from Damascus, comporting well with Luke’s depiction of his conversion as somewhere in the vicinity of Damascus (Acts 9:2–3; 22:5–6; 26:12, 20).

A CLOSER LOOK: DAMASCUS

Both Acts and Paul (Gal. 1:17, which claims that he “returned” there) state that Paul was in Damascus after his conversion (which presumably happened near there; 2 Cor. 11:32) before traveling again to Jerusalem. Many scholars, ignoring Acts, claim that Paul’s preconversion persecution of Christians occurred in Damascus. Against their view, the persecution likely happened in the same place as his advancement in Judaism (Gal. 1:13–14), where he got his Pharisaic training (Phil. 3:5–6), which would almost certainly be in Jerusalem. Until the time of Ignatius, none of our sources specify Jews persecuting Christians as a group in Syria (including Damascus), but rather in Judea (Gal. 1:23; 1 Thess. 2:15).

To reach Damascus from Jerusalem (cf. Acts 9:1–3; 22:5–6; 26:12), one would travel the Great North Road. Damascus was about 135 miles north of Jerusalem, a journey of roughly six days by foot (though it could be covered two or three times as fast by horse). An ancient city, it adopted many Greek and Roman religious customs alongside its older ones. Thus, for example, it completed a massive temple of the Damascene Jupiter (the old Syrian deity Hadad-Ramman), the largest temple we know of in Roman Syria.

Most relevant for Paul’s preconversion persecution of fellow Jews is that many Jews and also proselytes lived in Damascus; Josephus even claims that a generation later Damascus slaughtered ten to twenty thousand Jewish residents. Some estimate that some thirty thousand to forty thousand Jews lived there in this period; in the Middle Ages, estimates of the Jewish population varied from some three thousand (plus four hundred Samaritans) to ten thousand. Luke mentions multiple synagogues here (Acts 9:2, 20). It is possible that many Essenes settled in Damascus in an earlier period, although many scholars interpret the Damascus Document’s reference to the city symbolically. Luke’s claim that Christians already had settled in Damascus is not likely his invention; also, Paul was persecuting Christians in the period during which he was converted in or near Damascus (Gal. 1:13–17). Jewish Christians there eventually would have attracted God-fearers, just as local synagogues in Damascus were doing in large numbers.

Far from Judea (1:18–24)

1:18

18Then, after three years, I did travel up to Jerusalem to get to know Kephas, and I stayed with him for fifteen days.

Undoubtedly against the idea that Paul is an inferior, purveyor of secondhand information from the original, Jerusalem apostles, Paul emphasizes that his direct source is Jesus rather than the Jerusalem apostles. He elaborates a chronology that illustrates the impossibility of depending on the Jerusalem apostles for his knowledge. In doing so, Paul is not discounting their mission or support; he will in fact mention their affirmation that he has an equal and parallel calling from God (2:7–9). But Paul does not regard ties with the Twelve or with Jerusalem as necessary for his direct commission from God.

What did Paul’s visit to Peter (1:18) involve? Paul says that he went to get to know him, and he uses the term ἱστορέω (historeō). As with ἀποκάλυψις (apokalupsis) and αποκαλύπτω (apokaluptō) in 1:12, 16, we need to be careful not to read a term’s later influence into its earlier meaning; Paul only mentions that he went to make Peter’s acquaintance, not that he went to get a “history” lesson. The semantic range of ἱστορέω does include “get information from,” but this is surely not what Paul desires to emphasize here. Paul’s interest here is precisely in dissociating himself from any alleged secondhand dependence on Jerusalem apostles.

Nevertheless, if we ask, on the historical level, why Paul would have interest in visiting Peter in particular, the answer would presumably have to do with Peter’s role in the church, which in turn rested on Peter’s relationship with Jesus during the latter’s public ministry. It is inconceivable that the two did not discuss their respective experiences with Jesus. Indeed, this brief yet intense period of learning from Peter could well be the basis for the rumor of Paul’s dependence that Paul must here combat.

Whatever else Paul might have done besides getting to know Peter, however interesting it may be to us, is beside Paul’s own point. The emphasis rests more on the time: No one could sensibly accuse Paul of getting his gospel from Peter. He had already been preaching it for up to three years. Moreover, he spent with Peter only fifteen days inclusive, or about two weeks. (Whether Paul’s visit to Jerusalem may have extended somewhat beyond the duration of his stay with Peter, Paul does not have reason to specify.) In two weeks of constant contact two people can get to know each other well, especially since Paul apparently lodged with Peter during this time; “half a day would have sufficed” for a mere “courtesy visit.”

Nevertheless, no one would have reckoned two weeks sufficient time together to make one person another’s disciple. As an eleventh-century commentator observed, the point is, “For even if I were in need of instruction, I could hardly have learned enough in so short a period of time.”

Our debates today about the details of the chronology do not affect Paul’s point. Virtually all scholars acknowledge that the three years is reckoned inclusively; parts of a year counted as a whole, so this is between thirteen and thirty-six months. Although scholars debate whether to take into account Acts when working on Pauline chronology, all agree that Paul’s statements of time in Gal. 1:18 and 2:1 are essential to it. Some count the three years from Paul’s return to Damascus, and others from Paul’s conversion. If, as a greater number of scholars think, the latter is the case, we cannot calculate how much time was spent in each of the two locations.

1:19

19But I didn’t see any [of the Lord’s] other commissioned agents except Jacob, the Lord’s brother.

As for the other apostles (commissioned agents), Paul did not really see any other except James the Lord’s brother (1:19). (In Greek, the name rendered into English as “James” is always “Jacob” [Ἰάκωβος, Iakōbos], the popular Jewish name borrowed from Israel’s ancestor.) Whereas Paul came to get to know Peter (1:18), he only “saw” James (1:19), suggesting even less possible dependence on James than on Peter. Despite some detractors, the text probably does include James as an apostle, a conclusion probably supportable also by Paul’s usage in 1 Cor. 15:5–7.

James (Greek Ἰάκωβος, Jacob) is the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:19). After the tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity developed, James came to be seen as Joseph’s son by a prior marriage or, most often, as Jesus’s cousin rather than his half-brother. Most scholars today, however, including Catholic scholars and others who respect church tradition, agree that the earliest sources depict James as Jesus’s brother, son of Joseph and Mary.

Unanimous testimony of our early sources agrees that Peter was leader of Jesus’s disciples in the early church; by Gal. 2:12, however, James (there listed first) seems to be the chief leader in the Jerusalem church (cf. Acts 12:17; 15:13, 19; 21:18), with a role perhaps modeled after Alexandria’s Jewish ethnarch. Since Jesus’s followers hailed Jesus as the Messiah, making a relative of his a sort of a successor made sense to those familiar with royal and priestly dynasties; even so, sensitivity to the charge of nepotism could limit his role.

Acts 9:27 declares that Paul met “the apostles,” whereas here Paul meets only Peter and James. Luke’s and Paul’s different agendas dictate their respective presentations: Paul wants to emphasize his partial independence, whereas Luke writes after Paul’s approach to gentiles has prevailed and Paul’s connections with Jerusalem fit Luke’s emphasis on continuity. Luke’s generic claim that Paul met “the apostles” (Luke’s usual parlance for the Twelve) may summarize what he heard from Paul or from Jerusalemites, but Paul’s specificity here, though apologetically motivated, offers us greater precision. In both cases, however, Paul’s encounter with Jesus and his gospel preceded his meeting with Jerusalem apostles.

Though Paul’s stay in Jerusalem at this time was brief, Luke is undoubtedly correct that Paul preached there (Acts 9:28), since he counts his own mission starting from Jerusalem, the theological center of the world (Rom. 15:19). On many matters, Luke’s report overlaps substantially with Paul’s:

Event in Galatians

Gal. 1:17–2:1 (and other epistles fitting Galatians’ chronology)

Acts 9:19–30; 15:2 (Acts 9:27 presumably corresponds to Gal. 1:18–19)

Paul persecuted Christians

Gal. 1:13–14; cf. 1 Cor. 15:9; Phil. 3:6; 1 Tim. 1:13

Acts 7:58; 8:1–3; 9:1–2

Conversion near the city of Damascus

Gal. 1:17 (implied)

Acts 9:3, 19

Conversion through encountering the risen Christ

Gal. 1:12; cf. 1:15–16; 1 Cor. 15:8

Acts 9:3–6

Time in Arabia

Gal. 1:17; cf. 2 Cor. 11:32

—

Damascus three years later

Gal. 1:17

Acts 9:23 (“many days later”)

Escapes Damascus, let down in a basket from the wall

2 Cor. 11:32–33

Acts 9:25

Visits Jerusalem

Gal. 1:18–19

Acts 9:26–29

Syro-Cilicia

Gal. 1:21

Acts 9:30 (Caesarea, probably briefly; Tarsus); 11:26; 13:1 (Syrian Antioch)

Paul’s ministry accepted on a par with Peter’s in Syrian Antioch

Cf. Gal. 1:21; 2:11 (Paul a well-known minister in Antioch)

Acts 11:26; 13:1; 14:26; 15:22–23, 30, 35; 18:22

Evangelism in south Galatia

Gal. 4:13–14; cf. 1 Cor. 16:1; cities in 2 Tim. 3:11

Acts 13:14–14:24

Troubles with advocates of gentile circumcision in Antioch

Gal. 2:11–14 (by implication; this event probably occurs after 2:1–10)

Acts 15:1–2

Return to Jerusalem after fourteen years’ absence*

Gal. 2:1

Acts 15:2 (some prefer Acts 11:30)

Early Period

could

1:20

20Look: I testify in God’s own hearing that I’m not lying about these matters I’m writing to you.

Paul’s Look (ἰδού, idou) was a common way of calling for attention or pointing to an illustration or argument. It is especially prevalent among writers echoing the OT but by no means limited to them.

Paul emphatically swears an oath to the veracity of his claim of his limited time with the apostles (1:20). Swearing by a deity invited judgment from the deity if one did not speak the truth. (If Paul knew the early Christian tradition against all swearing, he seems to have understood it as hyperbole.) That Paul goes so far as to call God as witness to the truth suggests that his detractors had presented a different picture, perhaps with some basis in (but a different interpretation of) the facts. Paul’s visit may have been summarized generally as a visit to the apostles (a Jerusalem report perhaps behind Acts 9:27, if it is not simply an independent generalization), which was then interpreted in line with Paul’s dependence on Jerusalem.

1:21

21After that, I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.

In 1:21–22, Paul emphasizes that he could not have received training or commissioning from the Jerusalem apostles subsequent to the limited visit to which he has sworn in 1:18–20. Paul was far away from Judea throughout that period prior to his ministry that the Galatians themselves first experienced. Here Luke’s summary supplies just a little more information about Paul’s ministry in Syria and Cilicia, specifically in Tarsus, Cilicia’s capital (Acts 9:30), and Antioch, Syria’s capital (11:25–30; 12:25–13:3).

From the official Roman standpoint, Cilicia was joined to Syria as one province in this period, which could be called Syro-Cilicia. Although Paul as a Tarsian might have viewed Syria and Cilicia as distinct, he probably had reason to mention Cilicia specifically, apart from simply Syria, only if he had spent time in both. (The plural regions also implies more than one location.)

Given Syria’s massive size and large Jewish population, it was natural for Paul to minister there and to name it first here. Greater Syria’s population may have been nearly four million by this period, and Syria’s leading metropolis, Antioch on the Orontes, was probably the third city of the empire. Cilicia was simply one of many possible destinations, and certainly not the most cultured part of the empire. Luke’s report that Paul was originally from Tarsus helps explain why Paul also evangelized there (Acts 9:11).

Although Acts remains silent on any details regarding Paul’s time in Cilicia, the churches that reportedly existed there by the time of the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15:23, 41) suggest someone’s success in evangelizing. Paul’s preaching in these regions was sufficiently noteworthy that churches in Judea heard about it (Gal. 1:23), probably because of travelers between Jerusalem and Antioch (cf. Acts 11:22–26; Gal. 2:11–12), despite the long journey of more than three hundred miles.

1:22

22All that time, I was still unknown by sight to the assemblies of Judea that are in Christ.

Far from depending on Jerusalem, as his critics alleged, Paul in fact was unknown by sight to the Judean churches (1:22). That Paul was not physically recognizable to them does not imply that they knew nothing about him; they knew that he was the one who used to persecute them (1:23). Moreover, he cannot mean that no one would have recognized him, since he was in Jerusalem in 1:18–19 and had to pass through parts of Judea to reach it and to leave it. He simply means that he had little contact with Judea again until 2:1.

Many in the Judean churches may have once seen Paul, since the report mentions the persecution of “us” (1:23); perhaps Paul means that he simply remained unknown by sight to them in this period. His emphasis is that he was far away. Nevertheless, many probably would not even have recognized him by sight. In a period without television or the internet, surely only a minority of Judean believers would recognize him by sight. The exceptions might be those with exceptional memories for faces whom Paul had directly persecuted several years earlier, many of whom had scattered from Jerusalem during his persecution (Acts 8:4; 11:19), or those few who had met him during his brief stay in Judea in Gal. 1:18–19. Even in Acts, Ananias, presumably one of those dispersed by Paul’s persecution (Acts 8:4), had only heard about him (9:13).

Jerusalem’s population at this time was probably close to seventy or eighty thousand; the population of Judea as a whole was probably at least in the hundreds of thousands. I cannot recognize by sight most of the several thousand people who live in my small university town or (much to my dismay) even all my former students. Given the movement’s apparently rapid expansion after Paul’s persecution stopped (Acts 9:31; 21:20), many new members would have joined.

1:23

23They had just heard the report about me: “The one who used to persecute us is now announcing the good news of the faith that he was once trying to wipe out!”

Although false rumors may have later circulated about Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:21), initially his conversion and subsequent ministry were a cause for celebration there (Gal. 1:23–24). Some suggest that Paul echoes some pre-Pauline elements of the report heard in Judea, such as the faith (but cf. perhaps Phil. 1:27) or possibly the one who used to persecute us. For the most part, however, Paul deliberately frames this summary in his own words to echo 1:13. The Galatian Christians had heard of how Paul in his earlier days (ποτέ, pote) was viciously persecuting God’s community in Judea and was trying to wipe it out (1:13); now God’s assemblies or communities in Judea also heard about the one who used to [ποτέ, pote] persecute us and had been trying to wipe out the faith. Moreover, as God called Paul to announce the good news about Christ among the gentiles (1:16), Paul was now announcing the good news of the faith in Syria and Cilicia. Some infer from silence that Paul was not preaching a circumcision-free gospel at this point; that is possible (cf. 5:11), but it is also possible that this information had simply not reached Judea.

1:24

24And they were glorifying God because of me.

In 1:24, Judean believers were glorifying God because of Paul (ἐδόξαζον ἐν ἐμοί, edoxazon en emoi); in other words, they praised God because of what God had done in converting Paul from persecutor to proclaimer. In light of God perhaps revealing his Son in Paul (1:16), some would translate, “honored God in me,” but “because of” communicates Paul’s point better. In the Septuagint, this verb, or a cognate with ἐν (en) followed by a dative noun, often refers to God being glorified or honored by some means (e.g., LXX Judg. 9:9, ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐδόξασεν, en emoi edoxasen), including through (ἐν, en) those he judged (LXX Exod. 14:4, 17; Lev. 10:3). Perhaps more relevantly in view of the Isa. 49 echo in Gal. 1:15, God tells his servant in LXX Isa. 49:3, “In you I will be honored” (ἐν σοὶ δοξασθήσομαι, en soi doxasthēsomai). Ancient biographic material could praise a person obliquely by displaying others’ favorable responses to the person.

If Paul’s critics cited widespread Judean knowledge of Paul as evidence that he got his gospel from there, Paul could easily refute this. He was not in Judea for much of the time in question (in a court of law this would function like an alibi), and most Judean knowledge about him was secondhand and, unlike the opinion of his critics, positive.

Consensus in Jerusalem (2:1–10)

Scholars debate whether 2:1–10 reflects the events of the Jerusalem Council reported in Acts 15 and, if so, to what extent. A significant minority of scholars (including such respected authorities as Ramsay, Bauckham, Bruce, and Trebilco) identify it instead with Paul’s trip to deliver famine relief mentioned briefly in Acts 11:30 and 12:25; the “revelation” of Gal. 2:2 would then correspond nicely with the prophecy in Acts 11:28. Taken as a whole, however, the correspondences between this passage and Acts 15 are more numerous, and I believe that the problems of the famine-visit view outweigh its advantages. With the majority of scholars, therefore (including Lightfoot, Barrett, Betz, Fee, and Kistemaker), I believe that Gal. 2:1–10 and Acts 15 reflect the same events, although from the standpoint of different interests. For much fuller comment, see “Author, Provenance, and Date” in my introduction to Galatians above (pp. 6–13).

Certainly Paul recounts the features that he considers relevant to the matter at hand and from his own perspective. One might report even in detail the dialogue when a delegation met with other leaders, but one would naturally report it in such a way that one’s hearers would appreciate one’s role in it.

Some interpreters have found here the basis for a fierce conflict between Paul and the pillars, the Jerusalem apostles. Far from displaying any direct conflict with these apostles in 2:1–10, however, Paul seems at pains to emphasize their support of his noncircumcision policy. (As Acts 11:1–24 suggests, Paul was surely not the first preacher to welcome gentile believers without requiring circumcision.) It is this very agreement that makes Peter’s about-face in 2:12 appear so hypocritical (2:13). Paul does confront and publicly embarrass Peter in 2:11–14, but in 2:1–10 he merely prepares to recount that confrontation. Even in 2:11–14, the nineteenth-century Tübingen approach that reads second- through fourth-century schisms into the debate at Antioch is ill-advised; Paul is silent about any enduring schism and continues to recognize that God uses Peter’s ministry (1 Cor. 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal. 2:7–8).

If Paul visited Peter for only two weeks (Gal. 1:18) and then went away to Syria and Cilicia (1:21), it was clear that his calling and message were not secondhand from the Jerusalem apostles. Moreover, he returned to meet them only some fourteen years later (2:1), reinforcing this point. Some count the fourteen years from Paul’s conversion, thus including the three years of 1:18 in this count for a total of twelve to fourteen years from his conversion. A large number of scholars, however, count it as—and Paul’s language seems designed to be understood as—fourteen years after his last meeting with Peter and James in 1:18–19. As in the case of the three years in 1:18, the figure presumably includes parts of any years, hence here between twelve and fourteen years after visiting Peter, or between fourteen and seventeen years after Paul’s conversion. (On the view articulated in the introduction, Paul does not here count his famine visit recorded in Acts 11:30 and 12:25, which did not involve meeting with the apostles and would only unnecessarily complicate his account.)

2:1

1Then after fourteen [more] years I traveled up to Jerusalem again, this time with Barnabas and taking Titus with me.

Although one might otherwise surmise that traveling “up” (2:1–2) to Jerusalem could contrast with the heavenly Jerusalem of 4:26 (cf. Rom. 10:6; Eph. 4:8–10), it was a pervasive idiom for worshipers because of Jerusalem’s elevation.

Paul mentions Barnabas and Titus as if they are known to the Galatians (2:1); Barnabas ministered with Paul in Galatia (Acts 13:13–14:25). Some suggest that Paul brought Titus to Jerusalem as an example of the fruits of the mission; if Titus was his child in the faith (cf. Titus 1:4), Titus was his convert or mentee, possibly from Antioch or possibly a convert among the Galatians (like Timothy, Acts 16:1–3), which would explain their knowledge about him. (In Acts, Luke for some reason omits mention of Titus, unless Titus is Timothy, a thesis with some appeal but also its own complications, including for Luke’s chronology in Acts 15–16.) Then again, Antioch’s current leadership may have chosen Titus along with others; Luke mentions that Paul, Barnabas, “and some of the others” were part of the Antioch delegation (Acts 15:2).

The name Titus was a common Roman praenomen, of which only a few were in wide circulation. Roman citizens in this period, however, usually used their cognomen as their identifying name; those who used praenomina were “normally not Roman citizens.” Paul notes Titus as a Greek (2:3), a more prestigious ethnic group by the standards of the empire than most others, though the term can be used loosely for urbanized gentiles of the hellenized eastern Mediterranean world.

2:2

2I traveled there in accordance with what was revealed. I did solicit Jerusalem believers’ counsel concerning the good news that I preach among the gentiles. But I did this privately among the most respected figures, so that I would not be running, or have been running up to that point, pointlessly.

Although what was revealed (ἀποκάλυψις, apokalupsis) in 2:2 can refer to personal prophetic experience (1 Cor. 14:6, 26, 30 [cognate verb]; 2 Cor. 12:1, 7), the uses of the term ἀποκάλυψις in the context of Galatians refer to the revelation of Jesus Christ that God showed to and in Paul, especially with respect to its implications for the gentiles (Gal. 1:12 NRSV, 16; cf. 3:23). Likewise, the phrase κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν (kata apokalupsin) elsewhere refers to the revelation of the gospel (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3). Paul is thus not going up “in response to a revelation,” as the NRSV and NIV translate, but rather in accordance with the specific revelation of the gospel to the gentiles that he had received.

Thus Paul presented in Jerusalem the good news that [he preached] among the gentiles (2:2)—that is, the gospel that was revealed to and in him (1:11, 16), which he has been defending (1:6–9) and preaching (1:23) and would be defending also in the next scene/paragraph (2:14). Paul did not get this gospel from Jerusalem; even at the time he consulted the leaders there, he already had his revelation and had already been preaching this gospel for years.

Paul made this presentation privately among the most respected figures—literally, to those who were “recognized” (from δοκέω, dokeō, 2:2), a term that Paul uses twice more in this passage. Being “recognized” is not a negative description in Greek; it relates to public honor, applicable here to those “recognized” (the same Greek term δοκέω) as pillars in 2:9. Some suggest that Paul even derives this title from his opponents, who may boast in their own Jerusalem connections and the great apostles there. Certainly his opponents respected these figures.

The term δοκέω can, however, also mean “seemed,” and Paul, who sometimes plays on words and their senses (cf. 3:15; 5:12), will point out in 2:6 that the status of the respected figures means nothing to him or to God. Even in 2:6, however, such language is not hostile; Paul discounted human honor generally (1 Cor. 1:26–29), rejecting celebrity status for all Christian leaders, including himself (1 Cor. 3:4–9). In effect, Paul is saying that he needed the pillars’ approval for the sake of his gospel’s credibility (i.e., for the sake of public relations or marketing purposes), but as far as God was concerned Paul’s gospel remains true regardless of anyone’s approval. Paul remained polite and respectful, humbling himself, despite not respecting human opinions, until his hand was forced in Gal. 2:11–14. (One needed to employ care when criticizing a respected person.) Paul revisits the term δοκέω once more in Galatians, where he puts boasters, possibly his opponents, in their place (6:3).

Nevertheless, Paul’s meeting was not exclusively a private meeting with the three major pillars, since someone brought in others whom Paul did not consider even true believers (Gal. 2:4). Probably Paul has in mind a meeting of some or all of the apostles and elders present in Jerusalem as opposed to the entire assembly of believers there (cf. Acts 15:6). Our sources do not specify whether the false believers at this point were actually elders (cf. Acts 20:17, 30) or were other influential persons whom some overly tolerant elders simply brought in contrary to the agreement (cf. Gal. 2:4a).

It is not fully clear whether Paul’s concern about running . . . pointlessly (2:2) is the reason why he presented his gospel in Jerusalem or the reason why he did so privately; if the latter, he trusted the judgment of the leaders more than that of the Jerusalem church generally. Paul’s concern about running . . . pointlessly does not imply that he was uncertain about his gospel himself; he in fact defended it on this occasion (2:5). But if those who had greater influence disagreed, they could undercut Paul’s mission and lead some of his converts away from the faith (cf. 5:4), so that his mission proved to have been undertaken pointlessly. His ministry would be pointless if his converts did not persevere in the true gospel for eternal life (Gal. 4:11; 1 Cor. 15:2, 10, 14, 58; 2 Cor. 6:1; 1 Thess. 3:5; for running in vain, see Phil. 2:16). Paul’s then-current and past running depicts his then-current and past ministry as a race that he was determined to win.

Paul often uses such athletic images (Phil. 1:30), including running (Gal. 5:7; Rom. 9:16; 1 Cor. 9:24, 26; Phil. 2:16; cf. Acts 20:24; 2 Tim. 4:7) to depict his striving and unwillingness to give up without achieving the goal. Paul would have been exposed to Greek athletic culture even as a Greek-speaker in Jerusalem, an exposure certainly reinforced in his subsequent travels. Paul’s converts originally were also running well, but his rivals had tripped them up (Gal. 5:7). Other ancient speakers in the Greco-Roman world commonly employed athletic images, including running. Some argue that Paul’s image also echoes the OT (esp. Isa. 65:23), which is probably true at least in passages where Paul speaks of laboring in vain (Phil. 2:16). Greco-Roman sources could also complain about what might be done in vain; Jewish sources sometimes lament preaching or attempts at salvation that are in vain.

2:3

3In contrast to that concern, not even Titus, who was with me, was forced to be circumcised, despite him being a Greek.

That not even Titus . . . was forced to be circumcised (2:3) suggests what the meeting was likely intended to be about and indicates beyond question what the meeting came to be about: determining whether gentiles needed to be circumcised (Acts 15:1, 5). Paul chooses these words carefully, because in the next paragraph he will accuse Peter of de facto compelling gentiles to convert to Judaism (2:14), and in 6:12 he denounces those now trying to compel the Galatian believers to be circumcised. These are three of the only four uses of the term “force” or “compel” (ἀναγκάζω, anankazō) in the Pauline corpus.

Paul’s rivals in Galatia do, however, reflect a wider tendency in their culture of origin. Roughly a decade after Paul wrote Galatians, some Judeans reportedly tried to “compel” or force the circumcision of gentiles wishing to remain among the holy people. Although such behavior may have once appeared honorable among Judeans, Josephus knows that his own resistance to those insistent on circumcision will appear more honorable to his own Diaspora audiences. In the same way, Diaspora audiences would likely recoil at Paul’s description of the circumcisionists, while respecting Paul’s stand for gentiles’ freedom.

A CLOSER LOOK: ANCIENT IMAGES OF FREEDOM AND SLAVERY

In Diaspora sources, “compulsion” (Gal. 2:3) often contrasts with “freedom” (2:4; 5:1, 13). Freedom often included freedom of speech. Greek ideals of freedom differed somewhat from modern conceptions. Many ancient writers applied the terms for freedom and bondage in their national or political sense—for example, subjection to or freedom from absolute monarchs or other peoples.

For many Greek thinkers, simplicity and lack of dependence on others was a form of freedom. Divine truth “freed” truth-seekers from slavery to worldly concerns. Thus internal freedom relativized the significance of one’s natural state; freedom of the soul enabled one to ignore external troubles. Wisdom or knowledge and virtue brought such freedom, just as falsehood produced enslavement. Greek thinkers quite often warned against being enslaved by false ideologies or, most often, by passions.

Jewish teachers also used the language in regard to political bondage. Thus the followers of Judas the Galilean expressed an irrepressible yearning for freedom because they affirmed only God as their master. In a different way, Philo claimed that the one who serves God alone is the only one who is free. For Judean teachers, the Torah brought freedom, whether freedom from worldly cares, from national bondage, or from slavery in the coming world.

Jews who emphasized circumcising gentiles (Gal. 2:3) and appreciated Paul’s earlier zeal for ancestral traditions (cf. 1:13) might think of freedom in terms of nationalistic liberation, recalling fondly the Maccabean resistance. Jews could envision eschatological liberation; gentiles might also connect this terminology with political freedom. In the LXX, ἐλευθερία (eleutheria) applies to political freedom and slaves’ freedom. Josephus often uses the term politically, including for deliverance from Egypt; God grants political liberty for obedience to laws, and freedom includes freedom to practice God’s laws. Philo applies it to liberation from passion and for reasoning not bound to the body but rather liberated (ἐλευθερόω, eleutheroō) from its constraints.

Because Paul fiercely resisted Titus’s circumcision in Galatians, some scholars challenge the plausibility of him supervising Timothy’s in Acts 16:3. Perhaps Paul’s contemporaries noted the apparent inconsistency as well (see comment on Gal. 5:11). Nevertheless, the alleged inconsistency appears only at a surface level, for the circumstances are quite different, as commentators have long noted. Timothy’s mother was Jewish (Acts 16:1; so also 2 Tim. 1:5); the circumcision was for mission (Acts 16:3) rather than salvation or spiritual benefit (cf. Acts 15:1); and Timothy did not face compulsion. If Paul writes Galatians after Timothy’s circumcision in south Galatia (Acts 16:1–3), however—a case his Galatian audience surely would have known—it would not be surprising that the Galatians might need some clarification from him, which the Titus episode could provide.

2:4

4But this situation (some people challenging my gospel and trying to force Titus to be circumcised) was because of fake siblings, who snuck in to spy against our freedom, the freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so they could enslave us!

The circumstances of the Titus incident, in some way analogous to the Galatians’ current situation, obviously stirred Paul. As commentators regularly note, Paul’s grammar becomes unusually careless in 2:3–5, which is grammatically disconnected from its context. Such anacolutha are not uncommon in Paul, but this passage offers the most obvious example and has generated a wide range of interpretations. The lapses here appear to reveal Paul’s angry state; Martinus de Boer suggests that “the memory of the encounter causes his grammar to break down.” The situation might also be too urgent for Paul to have reworked this letter’s dictated rough draft.

People understood that haste or emotion could affect grammar, and forensic speech, as opposed to epideictic, was even supposed to display some clumsy constructions. Writers and speakers communicating rebukes were expected to adopt an angry attitude; while this could be feigned, many argued that feeling the passions that one sought to convey was far more effective than merely simulating them.

Others suggest that Paul leaves unsaid something about their motives to insinuate their guilt, a rhetorical move that was more effective than articulating the guilt more explicitly in ways more open to challenge (cf. similarly Acts 24:19; Philem. 19). (For that matter, in an informal letter even an orator could change his mind about something in midsentence, deciding not to finish the thought.)

Paul speaks of his challengers, who sought to circumcise Titus, as fake siblings (lit., “false siblings,” as in 2 Cor. 11:26; Gal. 2:4). That is, unlike the Galatians who still remain spiritual siblings (repeatedly in Gal. 1:11; 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18), and unlike Peter, who is merely inconsistent (and thus hypocritical) in 2:11–14, these critics are followers of a false and damnable gospel (1:6–10). They snuck in, perhaps slipped into the assembly of apostles and elders by some leaders who tolerantly wished the critics’ voice to be heard; or perhaps they earlier slipped into the assembly of believers though they were in reality fake siblings. Evidently, they and whoever may have helped them enter the consultation regarded them as genuine believers, in contrast to Paul’s estimate. Paul, however, sees them as foreshadowing the sort of false teachers who have now invaded Galatia in his absence.

Their covert entrance appears particularly devious in connection with their mission to spy (2:4). Depending on how far Paul presses the metaphor, he might imply that the false siblings were ultimately in cahoots with nonbelieving Judeans who pressured Judean believers (cf. 6:12). Greek, Roman, and Jewish sources note the frequent military use of spies. Just as military spies paved the way for an army that would enslave those whom it subjugated, so here these false believers sought to seize true believers’ freedom (2:4), so that Paul had to resist them (2:5). When Jews thought of spies, they most often connected them with military campaigns, as in the case of those sent to spy out the promised land. Here, however, the spies seek not to subjugate the land for Israel but instead to subjugate God’s true people. One might recall Joseph accusing of being spies his brothers who had enslaved him (Gen. 42:9); here, false brothers come as spies to enslave. Paul will revisit the issue of enslavement and liberation in Gal. 4:1, 7–9, 22–26, 31; 5:1, 13.

The image of spying could be used figuratively for rhetorical strategy. This is not the only place where Paul uses the image of spiritual warfare or battle (Rom. 6:12–14; 7:23; 13:12; 2 Cor. 10:3–6; Eph. 6:11–17; 1 Thess. 5:8). Such warfare imagery was common, appearing in the spheres of romance, oratory, orators’ moral exhortations, and especially philosophers, including accounts regarding Socrates and Cynic sages such as Diogenes. Some Diaspora Jewish writers also used figurative warfare imagery. Political contexts also use “smuggling” imagery for political intrigue.

Paul, however, does envision genuine spiritual powers involved in genuine conflict, as in Eph. 6:10–17 (cf. Rom. 8:38; 16:20; 1 Cor. 7:5; 1 Thess. 2:18). Paul also elsewhere envisions Satan as deceptive (2 Cor. 2:11; 11:14) and his opponents as agents of Satan (2 Cor. 11:13–14). The surface level of conflict here, however, is with human adversaries whom Paul deems as treacherous.

2:5

5But we didn’t let them subjugate us even for a moment. (We resisted them) so that the truth of the good news would continue for you.

Rather than accepting subjugation, Paul and his allies resisted these enslaving spies, not letting down their guard even for a moment (2:5). In a sense, then, Paul is now a truer Jewish nationalist than his adversaries, now contending for freedom in a more effective way than earlier in 1:13–14. Emphasizing consensus, Luke highlights the roles of Peter and James (Acts 15:7–11, 13–21), but at some point Paul evidently played a more directly argumentative role than simply offering testimonies (Acts 15:12). Paul was standing firm with the long-range effects on gentile believers in view—including his current audience in Galatia.

The Galatian believers should not, then, be surprised that Paul challenges their new teachers so forcefully (1:6–11); whether gentiles must be circumcised is a matter of the truth of the gospel (2:5), and Paul is ready to confront anyone covertly assaulting God’s people (cf. also 2:11–14). Although this passage’s fake siblings are surely not Paul’s opponents in Galatia—Paul certainly would have afforded himself the opportunity to specify the connection explicitly had the people been the same—from a literary standpoint they prefigure them, and from a historical standpoint they may have influenced them. As J. Louis Martyn points out, it is highly unlikely that these influential figures simply disappeared once Paul and the pillars declared their agreement. They rather than Paul remained in Jerusalem to continue propagating their perspectives; they may even remain a reason for Paul’s later concern as he prepares to journey to Jerusalem in Rom. 15:30–31.

Bridging Horizons

The wisdom of Galatians bristles with possible practical implications for readers today. Parts of Galatians already consist of direct application (most of chaps. 5–6) that, despite the letter’s original audience, largely translates readily into direct application for readers today. My occasional “Bridging Horizons” sections are intended only to invite thought. Since both Paul’s message and our reapplication of it for new settings are always contextual, hearing the message afresh in new contexts involves either generalization or mere samples. It is nevertheless worth a reader’s time to pause at least occasionally to consider specific applications, so we can resonate afresh with the concreteness of Paul’s original message in his context.

Those of us who were once in circles where minor details of belief were treated as gospel issues worth fighting for might wonder whether Paul here extends the implications of the gospel too far. After all, the heart of the gospel is Jesus’s death for our sins and resurrection, according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1–7). Could he not have been more gracious to those who differed on a secondary matter such as circumcision?

If we consider this matter secondary, however, we need only consider the likely outcome had Paul forfeited the argument. If gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to become full members of God’s people, then the Jesus movement’s appeal to gentiles would not have extended further than the appeal of their contemporaries in the synagogues: it would remain an ethnic faith, a variation on the range of options that other Jewish circles already offered. Paul’s divine mission to gentiles demanded freedom from those encumbrances that would culturally alienate gentiles.

The specific situation here is the imposition of the law, but interpreters from Luther to the New Perspective have been right to find other implications as well. If imposing a law once given by God himself is wrong, how much more is it wrong to impose regulations that are not even God-given? For example, had the cultural situation been reversed, Paul certainly would have defended Jewish believers against gentile cultural impositions demanded by later anti-Semites (1 Cor. 7:18–19; Gal. 5:6).

These observations have serious implications for the history of Christian mission. When missionaries mix up their own culture with the gospel and impose this mixture in other cultures (more common in earlier centuries), they repeat the error of Paul’s rivals in Galatia. Christian mission that follows Paul’s model should contextualize the gospel in the ways that are most intelligible in the receiving culture, whether that contextualization makes it more offensive (cf. Gal. 5:11) or less. Paul fought an ideological battle (cf. 2 Cor. 10:5) at the beginning to head off worse conflicts, or even suppression of the gospel, that could follow.

2:6

6And from the figures respected as being something—whatever they once were doesn’t matter to me; God does not play favorites—those respected figures added nothing for me.

Paul is not impressed with leaders’ status. He speaks of whatever they once [ποτέ, pote] were. Paul’s other two uses of pote in Galatians refer to his own former life; here he thus probably refers to the pillars’ special role as disciples of Jesus during his earthly ministry. Subsequent generations might venerate them as saints, but that was plainly not always how all their peers experienced them. Paul was consistent when it came to himself as well. He wanted his followers to imitate him (Gal. 4:12; cf. 1 Cor. 4:16–17; 11:1), but he did not want them to idolize him (1 Cor. 3:5–23). Believers should honor their teachers (Gal. 6:6) but also recognize that all of us stand in need of grace (cf. 1:15; 2:9, 21).

Their status doesn’t matter to Paul (2:6). Ancient Mediterranean society heavily emphasized social status. Class distinctions were crucial in how people related to one another, by the next century even in matters of law and dream interpretation. Conflicts sometimes arose when those of lower station resented these divides or aristocrats overasserted their prerogatives. In practice, the social pyramid left very few in the true upper class. Class and economic brackets were not coextensive; most of the empire was poor, though the abjectly poor remained in the minority. Many philosophers disregarded status, at least in principle, though ordinary Romans did so only during Saturnalia.

Betz suggests that Paul treated status the way Stoics viewed adiaphora, “matters of indifference.” Stoics regarded matters beyond their control as such matters of indifference. Whatever matters were neither good nor bad of themselves were adiaphora, though some indifferent matters were rationally preferable to others and therefore better when available. Gentiles who respected popular philosophers who disdained status could also appreciate Paul’s disregard for status here. Praise adds nothing to what is already there.

Human status doesn’t matter to Paul because it was irrelevant to God, whose perspective could be trusted as true. Jewish people widely emphasized the truth that God does not play favorites (Gal. 2:6; cf. Deut. 10:17; 2 Chron. 19:7; Job 13:10; Sir. 35:15). Indeed, even the wording reflects a traditional Jewish idiom. Although Paul applies the principle to status in 2:6, it informs even the thrust of his letter in terms of ethnic partiality (and by implication other roles as well; cf. 3:28), as in Rom. 2:11 or Acts 10:34. Elsewhere Paul and other early Christians appeal to God’s impartiality specifically to welcome Jews and gentiles on the same footing (Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11), as well as regarding slaves and free persons (Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25) and rich and poor (James 2:9). Despite their higher status vis-à-vis Jerusalem believers (Gal. 2:6), these leaders recognized that God had blessed Paul in the same way he had blessed them (2:7–8).

In any case, Paul says, those respected figures added nothing for me (2:6). The term added, or “contributed” (προσανατίθημι, prosanatithēmi), recalls the same Greek term in 1:16 (where it is translated as check with, or “confer with”). Just as Paul did not depend on the Jerusalem leaders for his gospel originally (1:16), he did not depend on them for the truth of his gospel now. He may also mean that they did not add any requirements to his gospel, such as circumcision; this thought picks up in 2:10, which mentions their only condition. While they added nothing for Paul, however, they did recognize his mission and the truth of his gospel for the gentiles (2:7–9). God, rather than human leaders, called him; but (note the strong adversative ἀλλά [alla] in 2:7) human leaders recognized his calling.

2:7

7Instead, because they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for the uncircumcised in just the same way that Peter had been for the circumcised—

They understood that (2:7) God gave Peter the gospel that he would preach among Jews (presumably including much of the gospel tradition that he witnessed), but God gave Paul (as noted in 1:11–12, 16) the distinctive gospel that he would preach among gentiles (cf. “my gospel” in Rom. 2:16; 16:25; similarly Eph. 3:6–8). This distinctiveness cannot mean that they preached different gospels regarding Jesus’s death and resurrection or its unique efficacy for salvation (1 Cor. 15:1–4); a different gospel in that sense was no gospel at all (Gal. 1:6–7). Instead, Paul’s wording in 2:7 presumably implies the feature of his gospel for the gentiles that was most distinctive, or at least most relevant for the matter at hand: it was good news for the uncircumcised, precisely as those who were uncircumcised. In Greek, these titles are literally “Uncircumcision” (i.e., gentiles) and “Circumcision” (i.e., Jews). This is synecdoche or metonymy, but the language nevertheless could be shocking and offensive. The just in the same way does imply equivalence of authority within their respective spheres; as Peter’s authority is acknowledged, so must Paul’s be.

Given his rivals’ likely appeal to the authority of Jerusalem, Paul has reason to emphasize this agreement (2:7–9). The Jesus movement’s top leaders shared the consensus that ministry to uncircumcised gentiles was Paul’s divine commission, not that of the Jerusalem pillars. Jesus’s followers in Galatia were Paul’s responsibility, in his sphere of divine enablement (cf. Rom. 1:5, 13–15; 11:13; 15:15–21; 2 Cor. 10:13–15), not theirs. So why should Galatian believers let some Jerusalem interlopers modify Paul’s gospel?

God entrusted Paul with this mission (Gal. 2:7; 1 Thess. 2:4); he ultimately had no right to refuse it (1 Cor. 9:17, where Paul again uses this verb in the middle voice). To oppose Paul’s mission was therefore to oppose the one who entrusted him with it; how one treated an agent reflected one’s view of the agent’s sender.

2:8

8they recognized this because the one who effected Peter’s mission as agent for the circumcised also effected mine for the gentiles—

It was the way that God worked through Paul (i.e., effected his mission) among gentiles in a manner analogous to how he worked through Peter among Jews (2:8) that assured the Jerusalem leaders that God entrusted Paul with the gospel (2:7). Although briefer than one would likely expect in a speech, this comparison of Peter and Paul would also appeal to ancient audiences accustomed to hearing rhetorical synkrisis, or comparison. Such comparisons could compare something inferior to something superior, as in Gal. 4:22–31, without necessarily demeaning the inferior; they could also, as here, compare equals. By comparing something favorably with something else known to be good, one rhetorically elevated the status of the component being compared; placing Paul in Peter’s category speaks favorably of Paul for those who respected Peter. Luke essentially follows the same practice by comparing Peter and Paul in Acts.

Paul elsewhere uses the term translated as effected or “worked” (ἐνεργέω, energeō) with reference to the effectiveness of the gospel (1 Thess. 2:13; cf. Gal. 5:6) and to God’s activity in believers (Eph. 3:20; Phil. 2:13), empowering ministry (1 Cor. 12:6, 11; Col. 1:29), sometimes including miracles (Gal. 3:5). Luke reports that at the Jerusalem Council Paul and Barnabas reported concrete signs of God’s blessing on their gentile mission (Acts 15:12). The coming of the Spirit through Paul’s ministry (Gal. 3:2; cf. 1 Cor. 2:4; 1 Thess. 1:5–6) was also a sign that paralleled him with Peter.

2:9

9and because Jacob and Kephas and John, those respected as pillars, perceived the special grace (God) had given me (for my mission), they extended the right hand of partnership to Barnabas and me. They did this with the understanding that we (would maintain our commission) to the gentiles, and they to the circumcised.

This divine effecting or working (2:8) demonstrates God’s grace (2:9) in the sense of his special empowerment or gifting. As far as the apostles were concerned, the clear activity in Paul of the same Spirit who worked in them, even in ways different from how the Spirit worked in them, was proof enough of Paul’s calling. (Cf. appeal to the evidence of the Spirit also in Gal. 3:2–5; Acts 10:47; 11:15–18; 15:8.)

In 2:9, Paul calls the chief leaders—James, Kephas, and John—pillars. In the earliest Christian sources, John often appears alongside Peter, always named subsequently to him and usually as his otherwise silent companion. They belonged to the trio of Jesus’s closest disciples; some time after the martyrdom of John’s brother James (Acts 12:2), Jesus’s brother James assumed this role.

Pillars was a familiar designation for important persons, similar to the modern idiom “pillars of our community.” Lacking more specific indicators otherwise in the context, most of Paul’s audience in Galatia would probably think in these terms. Thus, for example, some could lament the loss of Hector or the city of Troy as a mighty pillar. Cicero depicts someone as the pillar of a household.

Some scholars note the application to the patriarchs in later Jewish sources, which, they suggest, Jerusalem believers may have transferred to James, Peter, and John. This connection in the Judean church is not impossible, but it is highly speculative. Our evidence for this specific tradition is not pervasive, and this was only one Jewish way of applying the image of pillars to individuals. A prophet (Jer. 1:18) or martyr (4 Macc. 17:3) might be called to stand firm like a pillar, and other Jewish sources could depict those who uphold others, providing them strength, as pillars. Moreover, even such an understanding in Judea would have been lost on Paul’s Galatian audience without further explanation.

It is also quite possible that Paul presupposes the image of them as pillars in God’s temple, as scholars often argue, since Paul envisions the believing community as a temple (1 Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:16) and apostles as among those who lay its foundations (cf. Matt. 16:18; Rom. 15:20; 1 Cor. 3:10–14; Eph. 2:20–21; Rev. 21:14). Given rampant Jewish speculation concerning the eschatological temple, it is reasonable that Paul also thought in terms of an eschatological and/or heavenly (cf. Gal. 4:26) temple here. What makes this possibility even likelier is the early nickname Peter (Aramaic Kephas) designating the “rock” on which Jesus would build his church (Matt. 16:18). While Paul and Jerusalem believers may have presupposed such a background, however, it is doubtful that Paul’s Galatian audience would assume this narrower sense here, since they seem unfamiliar with the trio’s title as pillars and Paul makes no temple allusions in the context. Early Christians continued the image without such allusions in the context.

In the present context, giving Barnabas and Paul the right hand of partnership indicates an agreement. (Some scholars even think that Paul quotes or, much more likely, echoes, the agreement in some words in 2:7–10.) Good gifts came through the right hand, not the left. Giving the right hand and taking another’s right hand could communicate a range of positive sentiments. More specifically relevant here may be corporate, official uses. As here, clasping right hands was a way of establishing an agreement, friendship, or good faith, including between peoples. For example, it offered a suitable image for reconciliation between two cities in conflict. Perhaps relevant to the request to Paul in 2:10, the gesture could even function as a promise of assistance.

Although here apparently among peers (Gal. 2:7–8), the gesture need not by itself indicate the relative status of the parties involved. A commentator in the late eleventh century concluded that the sharing of right hands in 2:9 showed equality, since it reflected how ancients made alliances. Some suggest, however, that whereas Paul understood the agreement as among equals, some others understood the giving of the right hand in its form of being given to an inferior. The gesture often was offered to those in subordinate roles.

Although some suggest that James later reneges on this agreement because no oath is sworn, Paul is silent about both the lack of oath and the alleged reneging. It would be dishonorable for James to violate the agreement even if no oath were sworn (cf. James 5:12; Matt. 5:33–37); breaking a pledge of the right hand was deemed perfidious. Thus the psalmist laments the breach of covenant implied in “a right hand of falsehood” (Ps. 144:8, 11). In applying the image to an agreement, Paul draws on accepted convention, as some others have recognized (although usually not abundantly illustrated). The papyri treat this action as establishing a contract.

Paul specifies that this right hand involves partnership or fellowship (κοινωνία, koinōnia). For Paul, all members of Christ’s body are in community with Christ and one another (1 Cor. 1:9; 10:16; 2 Cor. 6:14; 13:13; Phil. 2:1; 3:10). Sometimes Paul uses this Greek word for believers sharing economic resources (2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13; Philem. 6–7; probably Gal. 6:6 [cognate verb]; possibly Phil. 1:5), including for the saints at Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26); he also uses the cognate verb for such sharing of resources (Rom. 12:13; Phil. 4:15), including for Jerusalem’s believers (Rom. 15:27). Although unity in Christ, and perhaps recognition of a peer relationship, is the idea here, the pillars may have also thought of economic sharing (note Paul’s caveat in Gal. 2:10).

The leaders agree that we (Paul and Barnabas) (would maintain our commission) to the gentiles, and they to the circumcised. The agreement does not mean that Paul could not preach to Jews or Peter to gentiles. In fact, the NRSV’s “we should go” does not appear in Greek, and the context invites us to infer a different sort of division of labor. It is not likely merely geographic, since more Jews lived in the Diaspora than in the holy land. It may be primarily ethnic, but not in the sense of exclusive rights to preach. As Ambrosiaster puts it, “He names Peter alone [in vv. 7–8] because he has received the primacy in the founding of the church [Matt. 16:18] and he himself had likewise been chosen to have the primacy in the founding of Gentile churches, but with the proviso that Peter should preach to the Gentiles, should cause arise, and Paul to the Jews.”

Rather, gentiles were in Paul’s sphere of ministry, whereas the circumcised were in that of the pillars. The reason, in context, is that God entrusted Paul with the gospel for the uncircumcised (2:7) and particularly enabled him in this sphere (2:8). That is, it is a general division of responsibility and representative leadership; as James Dunn observes, “James and John are not particularly remembered for missionary work,” but rather for their leadership in the Jewish Christian movement.

2:10

10Their only condition was that we should keep in mind the poor—which was exactly what I was already eager to do anyway.

Although Paul insists that the pillars added nothing to his calling to the gentiles (2:6), such as no requirements for circumcision (2:3), from Jerusalem’s perspective the agreement apparently did add something to his mission: the need to keep in mind the poor (2:10). Benefaction demanded reciprocity, and the pillars may have seen Paul’s commitment to the needy as an appropriate response to their endorsement. Certainly James is remembered for his emphasis on caring for the poor (James 1:9–11; 2:2–6, 15–16; 5:1–5).

The “poor” here are genuinely economically needy. If “the poor” is a title for all believers in Jerusalem, as some have argued on the basis of analogies with Qumran and some later Jewish Christian tradition, “remembering” them could simply mean keeping the Jewish Christian mission in mind, as Paul does in Rom. 11 (note esp. 11:13, 18). That view could make sense in this context. But the later Jewish Christian tradition probably does not go back to the first century, and the title “poor” usually includes economic need in the LXX. More importantly, Paul’s other relevant uses of the term and its cognates imply economic need. Thus, whether the “poor” are located specifically in Jerusalem or not, what is distinctive about the title is their economic need.

When discussing the collection, Paul applies the term specifically for the saints at Jerusalem whom he was determined to help economically (Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:2). Some argue that the Jerusalem apostles from the start had in mind anyone poor, not just those in Jerusalem; given the most common focus of Paul’s discussions about caring for the poor (Rom. 15:26–27; 1 Cor. 16:1–3; 2 Cor. 8–9), I am less certain about this. Diaspora Jews also regularly sent money to Jerusalem, although caring for the poor differs from the annual temple tax. Whatever they had in mind, however, there is good reason to doubt that Paul personally returned specifically to Jerusalem on many other occasions.

Paul is quick to note that he had already been eager to do this (2:10). Although current studies of Greek show the danger of reading too much into verb tenses, the contrast between the present tense of the word translated as keep in mind and the aorist of the word translated as was eager might imply that the pillars were requesting a regular activity (rather than a single occasion, as exemplified in Acts 11:30) and that Paul was already personally committed to this activity before they asked. Stating that one was already eager to do something before it was requested did not necessarily insult the requester.

If a regular activity is in mind, Paul’s later collection for the needy in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:25–27; 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8–9; cf. Acts 24:17) is simply the supreme fulfillment of his commitment to this understanding. Caring for the poor, however, was a regular value of Jewish piety, certainly emphasized in Paul’s Bible and in the Jesus tradition. Immersed in biblical ethics, Paul undoubtedly viewed caring for the needy as an ethical duty (cf. Eph. 4:28; 1 Thess. 4:12), just like avoiding stealing or sexual immorality (1 Cor. 6:9–10; Eph. 4:28), as an inevitable corollary of loving one’s neighbor (Rom. 13:9–10; Gal. 5:13–14). Paul regards greed as damnable (Rom. 1:29, 32; 1 Cor. 6:10). Caring for those in need was a nonnegotiably fundamental value of the Christian movement, which ultimately sparked “charitable initiatives for the poor . . . to an unprecedented degree within the Greco-Roman world. . . . Both Christianity’s casual observers (i.e., Lucian of Samosata) and its fiercest critics (i.e., the emperor Julian) seem to differentiate the practices of Christians from those of their non-Judeo-Christian contemporaries.”

Admittedly, Paul’s small assemblies of believers lacked resources to care for everyone who was needy in the world around them. As Peter Oakes notes, probably “fewer than one in five of the letter’s recipients are likely to be in control of a household’s finances.” Nevertheless, they could at least care for one another, and there were hints that, where possible, this concern should extend beyond their communities (Rom. 12:13, 16; 2 Cor. 9:13; Gal. 6:10; 1 Thess. 5:14–15). Paul’s later collection for the poor in Jerusalem shows that this expectation transcended the local level; that Paul at one point can even suggest reciprocity in a time of their need (2 Cor. 8:14) suggests that he did not envision the principle of caring for the poor as limited exclusively to the poor in Judea.

For the Jerusalem apostles, this requirement may have functioned as more than the mere proviso that Paul implies. First, insofar as at least some of the gifts could be directed toward the poor of Judea, the apostles may have envisioned the eschatological ingathering of gentiles bearing gifts to Jerusalem (Isa. 45:14; 60:5–17; Tob. 13:11; 1QM 12.14). Paul himself expected the ingathering of gentiles to provoke the repentance of his own people (Rom. 11:11, 14, 25–26, 31), and thus he may have seen his later collection as a sort of foretaste of that eschatological promise. (Against some, the collection was hardly large enough to be seen as the complete fulfillment of that promise.) This might be all the more the case for apostles who kept the Jerusalem church flourishing, perhaps expecting the nations to stream to Jerusalem as they led Jerusalem toward repentance (Isa. 2:2–4; 60:3, 11; 62:2). Such gifts to Jerusalem would also remind the gentiles of what they owed to the mother church (Rom. 15:27; cf. Mark 7:27).

Second, and relevant whether the proviso was limited to Jerusalem or not, requiring Paul to care for the poor may have implied a continuance of Jewish ethical standards among gentiles. (Paul’s later collection for Jerusalem may advance Jewish-gentile Christian unity, as apparently in Rom. 15:26–27, precisely because of this interest among the leaders in Jerusalem.)

Despite exceptions, this biblical and early Jewish value proved much rarer among gentiles, and so was worth mentioning explicitly. Laws concerning care for the poor constituted a major test of a proselyte’s acceptance of Torah. Jewish piety mandated giving to the poor as a central moral obligation. Even gentiles reportedly recognized the high Jewish valuation on charity.

Although at least some of the parties involved may have felt that caring for the poor required explicit mention, they and Paul may have understood some other standards as even more fundamental and therefore even more obviously required. That is, Paul’s only condition (μόνος, monos) here may obscure for us some other extremely likely expectations from the Jerusalem perspective: the minimal requirements for foreigners or righteous gentiles in God’s community, such as avoiding food offered to idols, meat from which blood had not been drained, and sexual immorality (Acts 15:20, 29). Jewish people expected any righteous gentiles to abstain from animals that were killed only by strangulation. Scripture itself required respecting the life of the animals and so removing their blood (Gen. 9:4); this rule certainly applied to gentiles living among God’s people (Lev. 17:10–14).

It is important for Paul’s case, showing that he has a mission parallel rather than subordinate to that of the pillars, for him to emphasize that the pillars did not add any requirements that he had not already planned to carry out. That is, Jerusalem laid nothing new on the gentile converts—certainly not circumcision, the most pressing matter here (Gal. 2:3). Purely ethical matters that were not new expectations did not require explicit mention here; Paul notes here that he was already eager to care for the poor. He also regularly taught against food offered to idols (1 Cor. 8–10) and against sexual immorality (Gal. 5:19; 1 Cor. 6:9–20; 10:8; 2 Cor. 12:21; 1 Thess. 4:2–8). Paul always managed to do this without appealing to Jerusalem’s authority, a point about which, we may gather (cf. Gal. 2:6), Paul may have disagreed, perhaps in polite silence, with the views of most Jerusalemite believers.

In regard to avoiding meat that contained blood, it was true that gentile butchers were not as careful as Jewish kosher ones to drain out blood. Nevertheless, even gentiles sacrificing animals slit their throats; they did not hang them up to drain out all the blood, but the process of slicing apart the pieces removed most of the remaining blood. For urban Jesus-followers, kosher butchers were the most convenient source of meat that buyers could be certain had not been sacrificed to idols. Paul’s converts, then, probably normally did not eat bloody meat in any case. Conservative Jerusalemites, though, may have been more suspicious of gentiles and may have held a higher standard for interpreting what was acceptable; “Some sages considered Diaspora Jews idolaters for eating with Gentiles even if they brought their own food (t. ʿAbod. Zar. 4:6).”

Paul undoubtedly felt satisfied that he had been keeping his end of the agreement, including in regard to food during shared meals in Antioch. It may be, however, that some Judean visitors felt differently (cf. Gal. 2:12–13).

Bridging Horizons

When I was an undergraduate, a recent convert from unchurched atheism, I loved to join my friend Bruce when he would share his faith. Some non-Christians became Christians when I shared my faith, but non-Christians became Christians regularly when Bruce shared his. My gifts were particularly academic, and the gifts of a third friend, John, were in leadership. Today Bruce does evangelism on a significant scale in another country, John is involved in leadership, and I have become a Bible scholar. We each respected the others’ gifts, but we each flourished especially in the areas of our distinctive gifting. We cannot boast in gifts, since we are not the giver (1 Cor. 4:7); but we can recognize those gifts and serve where God has gifted us (Rom. 12:1–8).

The fruits of their ministries showed that God had gifted Peter and Paul in distinctive ways. As Paul emphasizes elsewhere in his letters (most obviously, Rom. 12:4–8; 1 Cor. 12:4–11, 27–30), God empowers different persons with different callings and gifts; some are more effective at reaching one group or another. Like Paul, believers should recognize their distinctive areas of divine gifting and, where possible, serve in those areas of gifting.

The narrative also, however, reveals that even the best of us have weaknesses—even ancient apostles. Readers generally find it difficult to approach this confrontation from a neutral perspective. The Ebionites condemned Paul’s behavior in this account, whereas Marcion condemned Peter and his loyalty to Judaism, and ancient critics of Christianity used this account of the apostles’ disunity to challenge their suitability to be true vehicles for divine revelation. Tertullian saw Paul as overreacting; Clement of Alexandria claimed that Paul’s interlocutor was a different Kephas.

Apparently desperate to refute pagan criticism of this disagreement among these great founding leaders of the faith, Origen, followed initially by Chrysostom and Jerome, believed that Peter and Paul simply staged the confrontation to teach a point. (This in spite of Paul deeming Peter’s behavior not cooperation but hypocrisy.) Augustine, by contrast, challenged Jerome, regarding the incident as illustrating “the higher claims of truth over rank and office.” Augustine expected perfection only in apostolic words (Scripture), not in apostolic lives. Augustine eventually won out, persuading even Jerome.

The Galatians obviously respect Peter, and Paul plays on that respect (esp. in 2:1–10) no less than he challenges it here. Yet all humans are fallible and God is no respecter of persons; the gospel is about God’s work for us in Christ, not about human agents (1:1, 10–12; 2:6). Galatians 2:11–14 should warn us not to idealize or idolize the first apostles or any of Jesus’s other agents, and if not them, neither anyone afterward. Had the Gospel of Mark not been sufficient to teach us that Jesus rather than his disciples is the only true human hero, Paul does so in this case. Both those we respect and we ourselves are fallible, but the gospel is able to compensate for that fallibility and bring us back to truth.

Kephas Compromises Gospel Truth (2:11–14)

Most (but not all) scholars view the events of 2:11–14 as surely subsequent to the events of 2:1–10, and this approach seems most compelling here. All of Paul’s narrative so far has been in chronological sequence, and this was the customary way to narrate one’s case, often bringing events up to the current time. Whether or not the event that Paul narrates brings one up to the time of the current situation, so that he writes from Antioch, this episode offers a fitting rhetorical climax for what precedes.

Some suggest that Paul’s rivals had first mentioned Peter’s behavior at Antioch, which could explain why Paul does not need to supply more detail; Paul deploys the incident so usefully to address the Galatian situation, however, that he might have cited it in any case. Many scholars view this pericope through the lens of rhetorical comparison of Peter and Paul, but in contrast to the sustained comparison of figures in 2 Cor. 11:22–23 (or more briefly Gal. 2:7–9), fairly little explicit comparison is offered here.

What was the outcome of the confrontation recounted in 2:11–14? The view that Paul lost the debate with Peter and broke with Antioch here reads great significance into evidence that is ambiguous at best, since Paul’s account of his challenge to Peter mentions a break neither with Peter nor with the church. Notwithstanding lack of evidence in the text, many scholars believe, and some affirm with great assurance, that Paul lost the debate in Antioch. J. Louis Martyn may be representative: “The Antioch incident . . . led to [Paul’s] break with Barnabas, and indeed with the Antioch church itself.” When unrestrained, a hermeneutic of suspicion can read silence as speculatively as in the worst excesses of mirror-reading. In this case, however, the silence is deemed suspicious for a reason—namely, because Paul does not report Peter’s response, which one might have expected had Peter complied.

Nevertheless, Paul seems more interested in elaborating his subject than in reporting Peter’s response; he has already indicated that the pillars’ opinion as such does not count (2:6), especially with reference to gentiles (1:16; 2:7–9). Paul has highlighted his own theological argument, much as Gospel pericopes often climax with a saying of Jesus regardless of what Jesus’s critics may have thought. Granted, we might expect Peter to respond to Paul in order to protect his honor; failure to respond could shame him among those present. Peter could have chosen to respond in a way that shamed Paul—a real risk that Paul undertook by challenging him. Peter may have chosen not to escalate the situation, however, responding graciously. Even if he did not concede Paul’s point, he may have followed Jesus’s teaching about relinquishing honor. Had Peter objected strongly, Paul, who elsewhere shows himself a master of diatribe with imaginary interlocutors, would surely have incorporated the continuing discussion into his further reflections in 2:15–21. Even if Peter did not concur with his fiery accuser, he probably answered graciously or in terms that Paul construed as an inadequate defense not worthy of mention.

Some contend that Antioch’s failure to participate in Paul’s later collection signals an implicit break. This suggestion, however, expects too much. We also do not hear of participation by churches of Phoenicia or Damascus. Paul’s collection is from the churches that he founded; Antioch had its own relationship with the Jerusalem church.

It is highly unlikely that the Antioch church abandoned Paul here. Why would Christians in Antioch, who earlier sent Paul as a representative rather than submit to Judean teachers of circumcision (Acts 15:2), suddenly repudiate their own spokesman and advocate? They may have accepted Peter’s likely explanation that he was merely trying to keep peace with more conservative brothers and not trying to pressure Galatian gentiles into becoming Jews. Such acceptance would not, however, entail rejecting Paul; in fact, such a concession would mean that Paul had achieved his central objective. He does not appear to have viewed Peter himself as a subsequent threat (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5).

Moreover, unless we suppose that gentile Christians in Antioch then embraced circumcision or thereafter celebrated the Lord’s Supper, a fellowship meal, separately from Jewish believers, Paul’s opinion must have won the day. And how could it have been otherwise? Paul was close to the Antioch church; they did not know the visitors. Paul does not go on to denounce Antioch and highlight his own independence from them; instead, it appears that the situation was resolved and local believers again ate together (whatever the Judean interlopers may have thought). Meanwhile, by the early second century, Antioch’s bishop rejected gentile Christians becoming Jews much more vigorously than had Paul, making it likely that Antioch had been in the Pauline camp for some time. It is therefore likely that the confrontation in Antioch involved a single occasion in which Jewish believers withdrew, and that thereafter they returned to the practice they had maintained before the arrival of Jerusalemite critics.

Luke, not surprisingly, omits this incident from the book of Acts, although he does mention a different conflict with Barnabas in this period. This incident would not be helpful for Luke’s positive construction of apostolic memory, but it is also possible that Luke either did not know of the event or did not deem it significant. Modern scholars count it significant because it is among the few vignettes from Paul’s life offered in his letters. We should keep in mind, however, that Paul might recount this incident not for its overall significance to his life but because it relativizes his rivals’ appeal to Jerusalem and offers the best available analogy that Paul has for his audience’s current situation.

Yet scholars are often inconsistent in what they admit as evidence. Some of their argument often rests on Acts, but it can succeed only if they dismiss other evidence from Acts that contradicts their thesis. If we accept as evidence only Paul’s own letters, we would not even know that Paul was an agent of Antioch (Antioch appears only in Gal. 2:11); if we accept Acts for evidence that Paul was an agent of Antioch (Acts 11:30; 13:1; 14:26), why do we reject other evidence there? Claiming to be “critical” in reading Acts does not absolve one of the responsibility to be critical of one’s thesis if it leads to an otherwise arbitrary use of the evidence of Acts.

Acts mentions a break with Barnabas, and it is reasonable to suppose that this incident may have contributed to the tensions also suggested in Gal. 2:13, but Acts also shows Paul meeting with Antioch in Acts 18:22 and commended by that church in 15:40. Luke no longer depicts Paul as “sent” by Antioch after he has established bases in the Aegean region, precisely because by then he has other bases. The view that Gal. 2:11–14 indicates Paul’s break with Antioch is simply a scholarly tradition, one hypothetical way of reading the evidence selectively, not firmly grounded in the text. Whether or not Peter was persuaded, we lack evidence of a “break,” and Paul, despite some reservations, continues to respect him as an agent of the Lord (1 Cor. 9:5; 15:5).

A CLOSER LOOK: ANTIOCH

Probably the empire’s third largest city, Antioch held a strategic position as the “mother city” and most powerful city in the massive province of Syria. Scholars lack consensus regarding its population. Many estimate 500,000 or even 600,000; others estimate as low as 100,000 or 150,000. The disparity in estimates today mirrors that in antiquity. Strabo, writing in the first century BCE, indicates a population of 300,000; in the first century CE (perhaps due to increased urbanization), Pliny’s estimate is double that of Strabo; in the fourth century CE, however, Chrysostom cites only 200,000.

Antioch was a “free” city, mostly permitted self-governance, and “was a typical Hellenistic Roman metropolis.” The city was divided in four parts and was laid out along a traditional Hellenistic and Roman gridiron plan. It had a theater, an amphitheater, and a circus. Colonnades, wide walkways, and many shops lined its marble-paved main street, which ran for roughly two miles.

Besides the usual smattering of pagan religion, Antioch was known for the nearby cult center of Daphne. But Josephus claims a very large Jewish population there; rough estimates generally range from 20,000 to 40,000. Its ties to the east and the proximity of Judea, then governed as part of Syria, probably gave Antioch’s Jewish community stronger Judean connections than most other Diaspora cities. Jews and Christians continued in active contact in Antioch at least into the fourth century.

Josephus saw it as a mark of good Jewish-gentile relations there that, during the Judean-Roman war, Antioch spared its Jewish residents from the anti-Jewish slaughter that convulsed much of the region. Anti-Judaism did persist there, but apparently many Greeks also converted to Judaism there.

Antioch’s synagogues welcomed proselytes and God-fearers; various cultural factors also made Jewish and Christian ideals more appealing to Greek-speakers there. Early Christian tradition names Evodius as the city’s first bishop; his successor, Ignatius, was martyred in about 107. Until Alexandria equaled Antioch and Constantinople surpassed it, only the bishop of Rome was more prominent than the bishop of Antioch.

2:11

11But when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Although the scene in 2:11 is new, the topic is not. But here translates a weak conjunction (δέ [de], probably used adversatively, as in the NRSV); it gives way to a contrast with the preceding agreement. Kephas was party to the Jerusalem agreement that recognized gentiles as the primary sphere of Paul’s ministry rather than Peter’s (2:7, 9). Jerusalem was not to add requirements to faith in Christ for gentiles. Now, however, Paul regards Peter as reneging on his commitment—even though Peter very well knew better. Because Paul claims to have addressed Kephas in front of everybody (2:14), it appears likely that he confronted him even in front of those who came from Jacob (in conventional English translations, “James,” 2:12), and that the entire scene occurred during a single community meal.

Paul’s public confrontation of Kephas is dramatic and illustrates for his audience how fiercely committed Paul is to his gospel for the gentiles. Paul thus frames the entire scene by noting the confrontation (2:11, 14). Because the confrontation is difficult to comprehend without first exploring the situation that it addresses, however, I will examine first the situation depicted in 2:12–13 and return to the confrontation only afterward.

2:12

12The reason was this: before certain people came from Jacob, Kephas used to eat with gentiles. But when they came, he started pulling back from that and set himself apart, because he was afraid of the circumcised.

Paul leaves unnamed those who came from James in 2:12; whether or not he personally recalls their names, this information would prove irrelevant for and possibly a distraction to his audience. Identifying them as certain people (τινας, tinas) might recall the same pronoun in 1:7, 9, implicitly connecting them with the agitators in Galatia, but from Paul’s sparse description of them we cannot be sure that they, like the fake siblings of 2:4, actually prefigure Paul’s opponents.

Nor does their coming from Jacob (conventional English translations: “James”) indicate clearly that they come on an errand specified by James. The usual view that James sent them to encourage proper protocol in Antioch could be correct, but we cannot infer this conclusion simply from the language, because Paul does not actually say that James “sent” them, which he could easily have specified. To “come from” someone can simply indicate geographic movement without indicating commissioning (2 Cor. 1:16; 11:9; 1 Thess. 3:6). Thus, for all we know, James is mentioned merely because he continues to lead in Jerusalem (as in Gal. 2:9), and these Jerusalemites may have acted on their own.

It is more likely, however, that James is mentioned because he is associated in some way with the ensuing conflict. This does not necessarily imply fault on James’s part; Paul in fact criticizes not James but only Peter here. James may not have commissioned those who came, but the issue is at the least that the Jerusalemites would likely bring back the report of what they had seen, and James would at least share the same concern as that of Peter—that this report would reflect negatively or even scandalously on Peter. Paul’s sphere of ministry was gentiles, but Peter’s sphere of ministry was Jews. Just as Paul became a Jew to Jews and outside the law to those outside it (1 Cor. 9:20–21; Gal. 4:12), Peter undoubtedly was seeking to do the same, and Paul himself in fact says as much. Peter’s previous eating with gentiles had compromised him (Acts 11:2–3) with conservatives in the church in a way that James had been spared, making James the safer leader to hold the Jerusalem church together (12:17). James and Peter probably both wished to prevent the further undermining of Peter’s position in the increasingly conservative movement.

Peter used to eat with gentiles—apparently regularly—when no one was present who would object (Gal. 2:12), and thus behaved like a gentile (2:14). (Given his background, this probably presupposes some transformative experience such as the one that Luke depicts in Acts 10:1–48.) Some praised flexibility and adapting to one’s audience, certainly in cross-cultural settings. Others criticized such behavior as the domain of demagogues who enslave themselves (cf. Gal. 2:4) to the masses. As Peter Oakes suggests, Paul may portray Peter “as the waverer, the ‘flatterer,’ who instead of acting on principles, changes his actions to please different sets of people.” Fickleness was an oft-criticized vice in antiquity, sometimes associated with the masses.

Yet when more conservative Judeans who could report on his behavior to Jerusalem showed up, Peter started pulling back from that and set himself apart, because he was afraid of the circumcised (2:12). Although we may be tempted to excoriate Paul for inferring Peter’s motives, Peter may have even expressed something like this plainly: he did not wish to offend his own ministry constituency. As noted in the comment on 2:10, some in Jerusalem may have interpreted the agreement, particularly its culinary implications, differently from Paul; Jerusalem was also becoming increasingly conservative. It was easier to conform to their expectations than to try to persuade his associates in Jerusalem that his behavior with gentiles in Antioch was acceptable. For the sake of peace, then, he dropped the matter. Scholars thus often give Peter’s motives the benefit of the doubt here. The ancient commentator Theodoret of Cyrrhus opined that although Peter was not afraid of people, “he did not wish to furnish them with a pretext for scandal.”

In any case, Peter probably felt that he had a legitimate concern, whether or not he would have worded that concern the way Paul did (because he was afraid): his reputation in Jerusalem was at stake. This was a reputation that Paul has already noted in 2:6–9. Peter may have viewed it as influence for the gospel; Paul deemed the reputation worthless (2:6), an approach he apparently took regarding his own reputation as well (2 Cor. 6:8–9). Such considerations were not unique to apostles; ancient philosophers often disdained reputation, except insofar as it was useful to gain a hearing for their message.

Peter’s concern was the opinion of the circumcised (literally, “those from circumcision,” 2:12). This could refer to the circumcision faction among Jerusalem believers (Acts 11:2, using the same Greek expression; 15:5). It could also refer to those Jews in general who insisted on circumcising gentiles; Judean believers had concerns about their witness to their nonbelieving peers, and those who were soft on gentiles might also face actual hostility from some of those peers (see Gal. 6:12 and comment there). The strictest of Judeans considered those who compromised Judean customs to be as damnable as gentiles themselves. In this context, of the circumcised almost certainly refers to the same group of people to whom Peter is called to minister, regularly called “the Circumcision” (ἡ περιτομή, hē peritomē; Gal. 2:7–9, 12). Peter has a legitimate concern with maintaining his credibility within his sphere of ministry, but it is not sufficient excuse for alienating those within Paul’s sphere (cf. Acts 21:20–25).

Jerusalem also had shared meals (Acts 2:42, 46), but obviously on different terms. Antioch’s Jewish-gentile shared meals apparently started in a radical way; despite Antioch being cosmopolitan, this was a period of intense Jewish-gentile tension in Antioch and other cities of the eastern Mediterranean world.

One second-century Judean authority deemed Diaspora Jews idolaters because they attended gentile banquets even though they brought their own food and drink. Prohibitions of eating with gentiles, however, usually had to do with their status as idolaters; hopefully, even the visiting Jerusalemites did not place gentile Christians in this category, but they may have feared less nuanced thinkers who did not recognize the difference. (Some gentile synagogue benefactors also had official duties involving idolatry.) As pointed out earlier in this commentary, nationalism was on the rise in Judea, including in the church.

Admittedly, many Jewish circles had no objections to eating with gentiles provided that the Jews observed proper purity regulations. Some thus suggest that Jewish believers eating with gentiles had relaxed their own dietary rules. Jewish tradition honored heroes who had refused to eat gentile foods. Jewish people had preferred death to eating “common” food. They were to abstain from gentile pollutions, and some later rabbis cited instances of judgment due to the consumption of gentiles’ foods.

But it seems highly unlikely that all Jews present would have compromised their traditional food laws; most Diaspora Jews observed food laws. Presumably, most of them abhorred unclean foods. The issue also cannot be that the food was untithed—sometimes an issue in Judea—because we lack evidence for tithes from the Diaspora coming to Judea. (Judean concerns about untithed food can, however, help modern Western readers appreciate how seriously many people in antiquity took matters of food and table fellowship.)

Perhaps Antioch simply determined to ask fewer questions, trusting gentile hosts’ sensitivity to their concerns (cf. 1 Cor. 10:27). Perhaps the issue was treating uncircumcised gentiles as spiritual peers, as if they were full proselytes (and thus essentially Israelites) rather than merely God-fearers or righteous gentiles.

Some Pharisees had joined the Jerusalem movement (Acts 15:5) and undoubtedly exerted disproportionate influence on account of their status, and pure table fellowship was a primary defining characteristic for them. (The rival missionaries in Galatia probably were not Pharisees per se, since it seems likelier that had they been, Paul would have explicitly specified this element of his background in Gal. 1:13–14 as he did with probably less local reason in Phil. 3:5.) Their commitment to pure table fellowship sometimes segregated their meals from others who were less scrupulous, and at least required scrupulous rules to be followed when dining with others. Perhaps Peter wished to avoid offending this valuable element in the Jerusalem church. It is also possible that he wished to avoid offending precisely those members who, contrary to the wider and more generous view of most Jewish thinkers of antiquity, regarded uncircumcised gentiles as still “sinners” (see Acts 15:1, 5; Gal. 2:15).

Only the strictest pietists forbade eating with gentiles per se, or even social contact with them, but some were indeed so strict, and out of respect for their piety others might wish not to offend them. Such circles predominated in Judea more than in the Diaspora. One pre-Christian Judean work is especially emphatic: “Separate yourself from the gentiles, and do not eat with them.” Judith brought her own food to the enemy camp; even Esther was thought to have abstained from royal food and wine. Unlike others, righteous Tobit avoided gentile food. Jewish people also tried to avoid dependence on foreign oil. Although some point to the limited nature of the evidence, what we do have seems substantial given the relative paucity of texts from this period to begin with.

The dominant popular reaction against gentiles was growing in the 40s and 50s, bringing the strictest and most ethnically exclusive values to the fore. Rising nationalism in Judea undoubtedly influenced believers there. Unless they were sociologically unlike nearly all other culturally assimilated groups in history, Judean followers of Jesus probably shared the politics of most of their peers. Certainly they were zealous for the law and were susceptible to believing rumors about the gentile mission teaching Jews to abandon the law (Acts 21:20–21).

Whatever the specific reasons for Peter to separate from gentiles, this behavior was apparently calculated to appease more traditional Jerusalem believers. The pillars’ agreement with Paul did not permit Jewish believers to abandon their purity customs.

A CLOSER LOOK: DID JEWS EAT WITH GENTILES?

Did Jews eat with gentiles? The short answer is that some did and some did not. Diaspora Jews in Antioch probably did; it would have been less common with conservative Judeans. The question is thus not simply an ethnic one but rather a sociocultural one.

Even in much of the land of Israel, some contact with gentiles was inevitable, though many teachers warned against going too far with it. Some sages urged positive contacts with gentiles “for the sake of peace.” (In some locations, proximity between Jews and gentiles tragically facilitated genocide during war.) But, as already noted, the more conservative pietists who wanted to restrict contact were particularly concerned about eating together; “Separate yourself from the gentiles,” Jubilees warns, “and do not eat with them.” After all, God had consecrated Israel—that is, “separated” or “set them apart” from other nations (Lev. 20:26).

Even Diaspora Jews who hoped for gentile audiences could recognize that the purpose of purity laws, including those concerning food, was to separate Israel from other peoples. Jews in Alexandria had sought a place “separated” from foreigners. Josephus, though writing apologetic, notes that the law forbids excess intermingling between foreigners and Jews. Gentiles complained even of Diaspora Jews’ separatism regarding foods. But Jewish refusal to fellowship with those who live differently was, Josephus argued, no different from the similar exclusivism of other peoples; in contrast to some others, he pointed out, Jews actually welcomed converts.

“Pharisees” may have originally been “separatists,” and some connect this idea here with Paul’s former background as a non-Christian Pharisee. Table fellowship was a central concern of Pharisees; one should not eat the food of an ʿam hāʾāreṣ, a commoner not educated in the law, which food one must presume to be untithed. A pious person who oversees such a person’s banquet must be able to certify that all food has been properly tithed. If Judean Pharisees limited their culinary intercourse with common Jews who ignored their precise legal interpretations (ʿammê hāʾāreṣ), one would expect them (some of whom belonged to the Jerusalem church, Acts 15:5) to be no less concerned with gentiles.

Even if Jewish people brought their own food when eating with gentiles, later rabbis feared that a gentile could contaminate the food if the Jews were not vigilant. One Judean rabbi even deemed Diaspora Jews “idolaters” for attending gentiles’ banquets, despite these Jews bringing their own food and drink.

Later rabbis felt that gentiles’ homes were unclean, though this was because they were suspected of corpse-impurity. Gentiles were so impure that no gentile, including an uncircumcised God-fearer, could pass beyond the temple’s outer court into the court of women. Whatever they touched in a Jewish home became impure, and rabbis debated whether proselyte immersion takes a day or a week to purify the convert from gentile impurity. Some later rabbis compared eating with uncircumcised persons to eating unclean flesh. They advised avoiding even business with gentiles for three days before a festival to avoid the impurity attached to idolatry.

While a God-fearer who abandoned idolatry (a status relevant to gentile Christians) would not be impure directly, such gentiles would carry contamination from contact with others; thus God-fearers were also immersed as well as circumcised when becoming full converts. Later rabbis might expect their food to be clean, but not the seating in their homes. Moreover, casual observers might not distinguish between God-fearers and other gentiles.

Pharisees were not the most conservative regarding culinary intercourse with gentiles. Some more extreme Judean voices insisted on separating even from the rest of Israel, the “perverse” community.

Although the LXX uses different wording for this, expressions of Israelites being set apart to the Lord included their distinctive food customs (Lev. 11:44–45). Paul himself elsewhere quotes the most relevant text, using the LXX of Isa. 52:11 to call for separation from paganism in 2 Cor. 6:17 (“Be separate from them, says the Lord, and do not touch anything unclean”). Concerned about perceptions, Peter now separates himself from his gentile siblings in Christ (Gal. 2:12).

From Paul’s perspective, however, this separatism undercuts the gospel. The context following Isa. 52:11 promises that in the time of restoration the Lord will not “separate” (ἀφορίζω, aphorizō) foreigners joined to him (56:3, using the same LXX term). And Paul employs the same term, even in Galatians, for God separating Paul to preach the gospel among the gentiles (Rom. 1:1, 5; Gal. 1:15–16; cf. Acts 13:2); Paul’s own separation by God compelled him to oppose Peter’s separation from some of God’s people. Jewish people could understand their separation as expressing devotion to God, but gentiles typically viewed such separatism, including at meals, as antisocial and antigentile. The Roman historian Tacitus, for example, warns that Jews show loyalty to one another, but to other peoples “only hate and enmity” (hostile odium); one key feature of this enmity is that “they sit apart at meals.” It would scandalize current and especially prospective gentile believers and thus disrupt the ethnic unity of the community for whom Christ died.

Scholars debate whether the meal that Peter used to eat with gentiles (2:12) was the Lord’s Supper or just a common meal, but in this early period there seems little reason to doubt that believers’ shared meal usually was (or at least often included) the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17–33, esp. 11:20–22; cf. Jude 12). It was an act of fellowship rather than the more formal liturgical ritual that it became. Tension over social stratification (and insulted honor) often characterized ancient banquets, but some held that the Greek friendship ideal invited egalitarian treatment at banquets. Paul insisted on equality and unity at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:21–22, 29), so if the Lord’s Supper is in view here, division would be especially harmful.

In any case, regardless of the nature of the meal, one owed friendship and kindness to a host. Eating together established a covenant of friendship and could effect reconciliation between estranged parties. Those who entered this relationship thereby committed to permanent friendship; people were obligated to cherish hospitality ties. So securely did hospitality establish covenant ties that two legendary warriors refused to fight each other because one’s ancestors had entertained the other’s as guests. To harm someone with whom one had eaten was deemed a heinous act of treachery. Those who eat together at a table should not even betray friendship by slandering one another.

Antioch’s believers had undoubtedly welcomed Peter sacrificially. Most people felt honored to have a person of status visit their homes, and it was considered an honor to entertain a noble friend as a guest. Thus one could accept a hospitality invitation as if granting an honor, whereas refusing to stay in someone’s house when in the host’s city could appear rude. One refused hospitality to guests or from hosts only if the person was considered dishonorable; some later rabbis included gentiles in this category. If believers could not even eat together, bearing one another’s burdens and loving the others as oneself (Gal. 5:14; 6:2) would be well-nigh impossible.

On the surface, Paul’s public outburst at Peter might appear more a breach of friendship than would Peter withdrawing from table. But from the perspective of gentile believers in Antioch, Peter’s action was serious: to refuse to continue to share meals together when invited was akin to a declaration of enmity, breaking the bonds of friendship. Indeed, in ancient political life, being a friend of one’s friend entailed being an enemy of the friend’s enemy. Refusing a gift constituted a declaration of enmity. Peter had now entered a situation where he had to choose sides: he was going to offend someone either way, and as a minister to his fellow Jews he chose to offend Paul’s gentiles.

2:13

13And the other Jews present joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas got carried along in their hypocrisy.

Whatever Peter’s motives, Paul charges him here with hypocrisy. Against the old Tübingen hypothesis, Paul does not indicate a theological difference with Peter here. This is a disagreement over behavior, not over the content of the gospel message; that is why Paul charges Peter with hypocrisy, of living differently from what he believes, not with believing error. The point is not that Peter wrongly thinks it inappropriate to eat with gentiles; Peter has been eating with gentiles when no one was present to criticize this behavior. (Paul probably also knows Peter’s own accounts about Jesus eating with sinners; see Mark 2:15–17 and comment on Gal. 2:15, 17.) The point is that Peter knows that it is not wrong to eat with gentiles yet withdraws from them anyway to avoid criticism. It is acting differently from what he knows to be true that earns the label hypocrisy. He was not walking the straight way of the truth of the gospel (2:14), wording that might even apply to acting inconsistently with the agreement described in Gal. 2:9.

Peter’s status naturally carried great influence, and while he may not have intended others to follow his example, that was the result. Some Jewish teachers considered the leading of others astray to be even worse than one’s personal sin. With the primary blame still firmly on the influential Peter here, Paul notes that the other Jews present joined him in this hypocrisy (2:13). Jewish teachers often condemned Jewish hypocrisy, so the charge was also frequent in intra-Jewish polemic. (Gentile moralists used both this language and other ways to denounce living inconsistently with professed beliefs.) It can mean “acting the part” (ὑποκρίνεται, hupokrinetai), as in a passage in the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, where one only pretends to be a Jew, relevant to Peter’s pretense for Jerusalemite visitors here. Ironically, the Jewish martyr tradition honored one who refused to play the part by simply pretending to eat gentile food; by contrast, Peter pretends to honor conservative Jewish values, but this is mere pretense and hypocrisy.

The other Jews could mean those who came with Peter from Judea (he would surely have some companions with him; cf. Acts 10:23, 45; 11:12), but the language seems more sweeping than that. Probably most of the Antiochian Jewish believers decided that they should follow Peter’s example for the sake of Jerusalem’s perspectives. Jews could speak of the other Jews without meaning to exclude themselves from Jewishness.

The Antiochian Jewish believers participating might even include some of the leaders who had Hellenistic ties or who had long lived in the Diaspora (see Acts 13:1; cf. 11:19–21); this group included Barnabas (Acts 4:36; 11:22). Paul mentions Barnabas specifically as one who got carried along by the others (Gal. 2:13), noting that even Barnabas was led astray. Why “even” Barnabas? The Galatians would know Barnabas as Paul’s earliest main coworker in Galatia (Acts 13–14). Although Paul was likely the more proficient of the two in Torah and argumentation, Barnabas surely shared the same gospel message and sensitivity to gentiles; had it been otherwise, they could hardly have worked together effectively for so long. Paul directly confronts the influential leader Peter in this passage, not Barnabas or others.

Moreover, from this letter, if not from prior knowledge, the Galatians would also recognize that Barnabas was sent with Paul from Antioch and therefore knew the free rein that the Jerusalem leaders had given Paul’s gentile mission (2:1, 9). Of all people, Barnabas should have known better, so Paul had to take a stand that seemed virtually isolated from his colleagues at the time. That Paul did so exemplifies for the Galatians the strength of his commitment to the gospel for the gentiles that he had received from God.

2:14

14In contrast to the others, when I saw that they weren’t walking the straight way of the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of everybody, “If you, though you’re a Jew, act like a gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

What Paul needed now was not Peter’s or others’ private assurances of support; he needed a public stand that would keep Jerusalem’s distant agendas from splitting apart the ethnic and cultural unity of Antioch’s present church.

For the sake of the long-range future of the church, Paul confronted Kephas (2:11). But both standard Jewish ethics and early Christian adaptation of those ethics (Matt. 18:15–17), including by Paul in this letter (Gal. 6:1), demanded that one reprove another privately first. One might publicly shame that person only if private reproofs failed. Apparently the situation is so urgent, however, that Paul must act publicly; the separation and offense are already occurring in public. (Even some rabbis apparently felt that one could implicitly shame publicly those known for sin.) Scholars debate whether Kephas stood “self-condemned” (reading the participle as middle) or condemned by God (2:11). The charge of hypocrisy (2:13) might support the former understanding, but Paul’s concern for God’s true perspective (1:10; 2:6) might support the latter.

A CLOSER LOOK: REPROOF

Although some gentile moralists noted the importance of reproof, this was especially a Jewish emphasis. Jewish tradition also emphasized proper giving and receiving of reproof, that admonition must always precede punishment, and that it continue until the offender repents or decisively repulses the reprover. Like some other ancient moralists, rabbis emphasized that reproof was to be private and taken before witnesses only if necessary. A sage could hyperbolically rule that publicly shaming one’s fellow warrants exclusion from the coming age. Although a wise person should humbly embrace reproof, even sages did not always do so.

The Qumran scrolls, which include record-keeping of rebukes, also emphasize the standard Jewish sequence (seen also in Matt. 18:15–17): private reproof, then before witnesses, and finally before the gathered assembly. That Josephus adds to Exod. 18:14 this principle of private correction reinforces the probability that Jewish people expected private reproof. Love and concern could demand reproof, at least toward those who might trust one enough to hear.

Reproofs did not always reveal personal feelings. Respect for other wise people demanded correcting them and receiving their corrections. People of rank, however, were rarely accustomed to being corrected and could resent such corrections. Ancient thinkers recognized that even friends could quarrel, and a philosopher could differ with other members of his own school; a prosecutor had to value duty over friendship if the accused was someone he loved. Jewish disciples were not allowed to correct their teachers, but philosophers acknowledged the importance of pupils critically considering their masters’ teachings.

The language of Paul’s confrontation is strong: I opposed him to his face (2:11), language used in the Septuagint even for military resistance. Paul begins describing the confrontation in 2:14. Here “the truth of the gospel” echoes the same “truth of the gospel” for which Paul resisted the fake siblings in 2:5, and for which he was now opposing his opponents in Galatia (1:6–9), the gospel revealed to him by God (1:11, 16) and that he preached (1:23; 2:2). Peter and those who followed his behavior were weren’t walking the straight way of the truth of the gospel (2:14), hence were acting as hypocrites (2:13).

Peter was living like a gentile (2:14) at least in the sense that he was eating with gentiles (2:12), apparently without personal consideration of stricter Judean scruples. (Certainly he lacked the form of scruples for ancestral traditions that the zealous Paul had followed in his past; see 1:14.) Noting the present tense of the observation even after Peter withdraws, some plausibly suggest that “living like a gentile” (2:14) may echo a complaint from men who came from James (2:12). Living like gentiles was common Jewish polemic against less strict Jewish sects.

Yet now Peter, who knew that there was nothing inherently wrong with this gentile sort of lifestyle, was compelling gentiles to adopt a Jewish lifestyle. This compulsion violated the agreement that allowed both groups to follow their own culture (2:9; Acts 15:29; 21:21, 25), an agreement that Paul believed he still followed. Paul was not interfering with the Jewish mission (1 Cor. 7:18–19; Gal. 5:6), but Peter was adversely affecting Paul’s ministry among gentiles.

The term translated to follow Jewish customs (ἰουδαίζειν, ioudaizein) applies to adopting Jewish customs or lifestyle. The term can apply simply to Jewish sympathizers who selectively adopted some Jewish customs, but it could also go further. The Greek version of Esther 8:17 declares that many gentiles were circumcised and “judaized” because they feared the Jews. Likewise, a gentile soldier agreed to “judaize” to the point of circumcision to save his life. In the last two examples, fear rather than conviction compels circumcision (cf. Peter acting from fear in Gal. 2:12).

It is no coincidence that Paul uses here a strong term, force (ἀναγκάζω, anankazō; 2:14), the same term he used in regard to the fake siblings who (in contrast to the pillars) tried to force Titus’s circumcision in 2:3 and the term he will use for his opponents trying to force the Galatian believers to be circumcised in 6:12. By saying that Peter would force gentiles to follow Jewish customs (2:14), Paul is implying something akin to forcing them to be circumcised!

Peter no doubt would have insisted that he was not compelling gentiles to do anything; he was simply acting for himself to protect the integrity of the Judean mission. Paul saw the matter differently, with keen foresight recognizing where such an exclusivity would lead. To eat with Peter, to maintain fellowship with the mother church, and to become part of the in-group, the most committed gentile Christians would adopt circumcision. In the process, they would also alienate less committed gentile inquirers. Peter did not compel gentiles by demands, but rather by actions that would create social pressure and implied theological pressure.

Bridging Horizons

In the face of rising nationalism in Judea, Judean believers in Jesus reflected the values dominant around them, closing ranks against generally hostile outsiders. In Acts, Paul had no problem identifying with Judean customs, provided these were not imposed on gentiles (Acts 21:21–26). Yet Paul treated as betrayal Peter’s similar accommodation of conservative Judean customs, because the setting in Antioch was very different.

The saying, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” (adapted from a saying attributed to Ambrose of Milan) somewhat communicates the thought. It is right to contextualize nonessentials for one’s context; however, it is positively dangerous to export that contextualization into a different context where it imposes hardship and violates local culture. The social unity of God’s people is a fragile blessing, easily pulled and too often rent by our other allegiances. If we allow any other social allegiance—to culture, ethnicity, social status, gender, political party, or the like (cf. Gal. 3:28)—to shatter our common unity in Christ, we cannot rightly call him Lord.

Unfortunately, contexts often overlap, somewhat complicating how we implement the principle. Within a span of a few months in 2016, the United Kingdom voted on the controversial Brexit referendum, and the United States held a highly divisive election. Perceptions shift over time, but they were quite polarized at the time. In the United States, immigrants and members of ethnic minorities had genuine reasons for anxiety about the election of one candidate; many felt that they could not trust Christian brothers and sisters whose votes revealed that they could accept as president someone widely perceived as an insensitive racist and misogynist. Some Christians who belonged to the dominant culture felt that a more pressing justice issue, if one had to choose, was abortion: if a fetus was genetically a live human being, then abortions had killed some sixty million persons in the United States since 1973.

The dominant US two-party system sometimes leads to rhetorical polarization, and propagandists readily incited fear by highlighting the most extreme voices and stances on the opposite side. Some voters traded freely in accusations of fascism and genocide, often in the process going beyond mere ethical observations to extrapolating opponents’ motives. Some others, mistrustful of both candidates or their commitments, sat out the election or voted for a third-party candidate.

Because these and other concerns fell on different sides of the two-party political divide, Christians divided passionately as well. For example, one generally friendly acquaintance denounced me as an accomplice to genocide because I was suspicious of his candidate. (While I shared some of my critic’s concerns about the political platform that my critic opposed, my social location differs, since I have experienced the obstacles that my wife and children faced as African immigrants.) Other friends, feeling betrayed by the majority of white Christians who supported the conservative candidate, expressed inability henceforth to trust any longer those white Christians’ platitudes about social concern.

If one defines “evangelical” by theological beliefs rather than by self-identification (in the United States, the label is more popular among white evangelicals), US evangelicals were deeply divided. A strong majority of white evangelicals voted for one party, whereas a strong majority of black and Latino/a evangelicals (who comprise higher proportions of their respective populations) voted for the other. (Since only a very small minority of global evangelicals live in the US, many other evangelicals found themselves perplexed and/or dismayed by what they heard about US evangelicals.)

My concern here is not on which side history’s verdict will ultimately fall, but the frequent incivility that made productive discussions difficult. By exposing underlying divisions often avoided in polite, surface conversation, this election deepened mistrust across ethnic lines. If we cannot love one another enough to listen to and understand others’ concerns, we treat our nationalistic or ethnic allegiances as stronger in practice than our membership in Christ’s body.

Does not Jesus demand of us a higher allegiance (cf. Luke 14:26–27)? In general, members of minority cultures understand the dominant culture, which surrounds them, far better than the reverse, so listening is particularly incumbent on members of any dominant culture. Internalizing Christ’s command to serve and his valuing the least in power as the greatest would go a long way toward bridging such divides (cf. Matt. 23:11; 25:40; Mark 9:35–37; 10:14–15, 42–45; Luke 9:48; 22:26; John 13:14–15; Gal. 5:13–14).

Culture affects us. It is all too easy to denounce first-century Judean nationalism if we are unwilling to hear one another out in our own country. Dialogues across cultural lines might not change basic partisan affiliations or even how we prioritize issues, but they would at least offer a sense of understanding why fellow Christians acted the way they did. Confrontations such as the one Paul narrates between himself and Peter are inevitable insofar as the gospel engages multiple cultures. Their ultimate purpose, however, must not be deeper division, but rather an informed unity in the gospel in the face of important cultural differences.

Made Right with God through Christ Alone (2:15–21)

2:15

15“We are Jews ethnically and not sinners from the gentiles.

Some scholars view 2:15–21 as the letter’s propositio, the element of argumentative communication that should note both agreed-on facts and issues still to be debated. Even if use of this term perhaps imposes rhetorical expectations artificially onto this letter, Paul here lays out themes that he revisits in the rest of the letter.

Paul’s argument in 2:14–21 (esp. 2:17–19) is one of the most difficult arguments to follow in Paul’s letters; hence it bears summarizing in an introductory manner here. Scholars debate whether Paul is presenting this entire section as his speech to Peter; Many scholars view Paul’s response to Peter as blending seamlessly into Paul’s exposition for the Galatians. Certainly it at least begins as such even if Paul expounds further implications. With a majority of scholars, however, I think it likely that Paul offers here a précis of the case he argued to Peter, restating “the position he argued for at Antioch.” In particular, verses 15 and 17 seem quite relevant to the situation in Antioch. Granted, one might doubt that Peter and the others present would permit a monologue of this length without interrupting, but Paul may summarize his overall argument here without implying that nothing else was said. The entirety of 2:11–21 functions as a rhetorical unit in any case. Terminological links between 2:14 and 2:15–17 demonstrate that the latter continues to expound the Antioch situation envisioned in the former.

Becoming like gentiles (eating with the uncircumcised) may offend conservative religious scruples, but it is not a sin. Pharisees criticized Jesus for eating with “sinners,” and on an earlier occasion (see Acts 11:2–3) circumcisionist believers criticized Peter for eating with uncircumcised gentiles. Here it happens again, in Antioch: on the basis of their understanding of purity, circumcisionists did not believe that Peter should be eating with those they considered sinners—namely, unconverted (uncircumcised) gentiles.

Consequently, Paul presses the question as to whether it really is a sin to eat with uncircumcised people. Peter knew better in Christ. This conviction is obvious because Peter, though he is a Jew, acts like a gentile (as did Paul, 4:12; cf. 1 Cor. 9:21) in eating with gentiles, yet expects gentiles to follow Jewish practices in order to be fully welcome (2:14). Thus Paul could speak of “we Jews” (meaning here Jewish believers in Jesus, such as Peter and Paul), who were not gentile “sinners” (2:15). Yet because of Christ they became like gentiles in eating with them, and thus through Christ became “sinners” like them (2:17)—if in fact these gentiles were “sinners”!

The conclusion is absurd, which implies that the premise that it is sinful to eat with gentiles (because they alone are sinners) must also be absurd. Jewish believers in Jesus understood that all were sinners and all would be justified only by faith in Christ (2:16). It is absurd to suppose that those made right by Christward faith (2:16) will behave more sinfully (see 5:13; cf. Rom. 6:1–2).

Paul argues further: if I rebuild the things that I once tore down (2:18)—ritual purity customs that separate me from gentiles—then I am showing that I should not have torn them down to begin with, and I am admitting that I really am breaking the law by fellowshiping with gentiles. Alternatively (but less likely), Paul might mean that it is by rebuilding these barriers that he is actually breaking the law. The overall point is ultimately the same on either reading.

“In Christ,” Paul says, I died with respect to the law (2:19)—and thus to the need for ritual purity that supposedly separates Jews from gentiles. Paul died with Christ so that he would (subjunctive) live—that is, have eternal life (see comment on 3:11), sharing Christ’s resurrection life. Indeed, in union with Christ, Paul lives in resurrection power even now by Christ in him, by faith (2:20). He has been crucified with Christ (2:19–20) to the ways of the old age, which include passions (5:24), the world (6:14), and even in one sense the law (2:19), which Paul will equate with old ways (4:9–10). Sharing in Christ’s risen life, he belongs to the realm of the new creation, where neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters (6:15). It is Christ, not law, that makes one righteous (2:21); so on theological grounds, one should not withdraw from eating with gentiles.

Paul reduces the social issue of table fellowship with gentile believers as equals to the theological issue of equal justification before God.

Galatians receiving the Spirit (3:2) is not a new subject; Christ also lives in them (2:20). They, like the Jewish Christians who ate with them, are not under the law but can more than fulfill the righteous expectations of its heart by the reign of Christ and the Spirit in them (5:13–25).

Paul may rhetorically shift to using first-person plural (“we Jews” in 2:15–17) and ultimately first-person singular (“I” in 2:18–21) in order to reduce the direct challenge to Peter, while still applying this passage to Peter by implication. Still, the affirmation of 2:16 appeals to shared assumptions; the “you” of 2:14 can be expanded to “we” because Paul also eats with gentiles (and so himself can be said to live like a gentile). Jews ethnically (2:15) is literally “Jews by nature”; some Jewish tradition preserved in later sources speaks of Jews having a special, inherited nature ancestrally freed from the impulse to idolatry, but Paul’s point here is undoubtedly more straightforward. Paul might believe that gentile Christians are spiritual proselytes grafted into Abraham’s family (3:29), but he distinguishes ethnic Jews from gentiles “by nature” (Rom. 2:14, 27; 11:21, 24). Many people in antiquity believed that a person’s born character or nature remained unchanged; others demurred.

Jewish people believed that gentiles were mostly sinners (2:15); even the basic tradition of Noahide laws expected righteous gentiles to abstain from idolatry, thereby excluding most gentiles. As for sexual immorality, later rabbis warned, for example, against leaving animals at gentile inns, since gentiles were suspected of bestiality. Scripture itself separated Israel for God to be unlike the nations around them (Lev. 18:24; 20:24, 26; Deut. 18:9, 14).

The language of “sinner” (2:15) normally implies blatant violators of God’s law, though it can include any human who sins. Sinners from among the gentiles here may recall language used by Peter’s critics, though Paul could also be caricaturing their ideas with this language. (Some Jewish groups used “sinners” language to denounce not just sinful gentiles but also other Jewish groups.) Skillful debaters appreciated the ability to turn an opponent’s arguments or words against him.

Even more likely, Paul probably evokes scenes that Peter would have known firsthand: Pharisaic scribes challenged Jesus’s disciples because Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16). (Most scholars agree that Jesus did in fact eat with those considered sinners by the elites.)

Yet Jews, who are not sinners from the gentiles (2:15), also were justified only through Christ; the NRSV’s “and we have come to believe” (2:16) might mean something like “even we have come to believe.” That is, if “even” Christian Jews could depend only on Christ for salvation, then surely this necessity applies also to Christian gentiles.

2:16

16“Yet we know that a person isn’t righted with God by law-works, but instead through faith in Jesus Christ. And we ourselves have committed our faith in Christ Jesus, so that we may be righted with God on the basis of faith in Christ and not law-works. That is because nobody will be righted with God on the basis of law-works.

Galatians 2:16 is certainly a key statement of Paul’s arguments; its complex of ideas is developed more fully in chapters 3–4. Paul introduces various vocabulary and issues in this verse that he will develop later, hence requiring this commentary to offer more detailed treatment of this verse than of some others.

Some suggest that Paul formulated justification by faith during the Galatian controversy, but this verse suggests otherwise. Although the exact formulation is missing in 1 Thessalonians, the basic idea of salvation only through Christ is already present there (1 Thess. 1:9–10; 5:9–10), dependent on their faith (Gal. 3:5). Although Paul highlights justification by faith especially when he must show that gentiles and Jews both come to God on the same terms, such as in Romans and Galatians, he continues to affirm its truth elsewhere (1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Cor. 3:9; Phil. 3:9). Interestingly, writing speech-in-character, Luke uses the verb in Acts only in Paul’s speech in Galatia (Acts 13:38–39); although he perhaps introduces the terminology into a traditional parable of Jesus in Luke 18:14 (cf. 10:29; 16:15), only in Acts 13 does Luke explicitly connect it with faith, a connection that appears sometimes in Paul’s letters (Gal. 2:16; 3:8, 11, 24).

More to the point here, the belief that people can be righted with God in Christ was apparently not unique to Paul. In the present passage, Paul appeals to a preexisting understanding shared with other Jewish Christians (we know), perhaps even expressed at the Jerusalem Council of Gal. 2:1–10. Some even believe that he appeals to a formula they already shared. While the understanding was shared with Peter and probably other Jewish believers present, however, many scholars doubt that it was shared with Paul’s opponents in Galatia. Some scholars also suggest that Paul applies the shared understanding differently than many others: the others took the ἐὰν μὴ διά (ean mē dia, translated here as but instead through) as “except through,” whereas Paul understands it as “but rather through.” That is, they took for granted the need to keep Torah and added Christ. Paul thus will go on to force a choice between law-works and Christ-faith (3:9–13); if Christ is wholly sufficient in this new era since his death and resurrection, nothing else can be necessary.

Regardless of varied conclusions on matters of detail, it seems clear at least that Jewish believers who kept the law recognized, no less than gentile believers, the need to depend on Christ. The law was their heritage and culture; imposing it as a spiritual requirement for gentiles, however, rejected the spiritual sufficiency of Christ. Paul regularly argues from the gospel, whether elucidating its implications for worldly power and status in 1–2 Corinthians, for hope in 1 Thess. 4–5, for sexual purity in 1 Cor. 6:12–20, for ethnic unity in Christ in Galatia and Rome, or for unity across socioeconomic divides in Corinth, and so forth.

A CLOSER LOOK: JUSTIFICATION

Although in 2:16 English translations often say that “we might be justified” (ASV, NRSV) or “may be justified” (NASB, NIV), the Greek subjunctive here does not include the nuance of doubt that the English “might” or “may” could suggest; for believers, justification is certain. Paul apparently shifts to the future in 2:16’s final clause (will be righted) (cf. 5:5–6).

English also does not capture well the connection in Greek between the terms that translations sometimes render as “justify” and “righteousness”; perhaps we could clarify the relationship better by rendering the verb “make/put right.” The Greek noun δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosunē) typically means “justice,” and the verb δικαιόω (dikaioō) often means “seek justice against (someone).” Paul’s usage hews much closer to usage in the Septuagint (LXX), the common Greek rendering of Scripture.

Scholarship today usually follows John Ziesler’s analysis of the terms: Paul uses the verb δικαιόω (dikaioō, typically translated as “justify”) forensically but the noun δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosunē, normally translated as “righteousness,” but sometimes as “justification”) and the adjective δίκαιος (dikaios, “righteous”) for righteous living. Emphasizing the verb, some scholars (more often in keeping with Protestant tradition) emphasize forensic righteousness: God has acquitted sinners. Emphasizing the noun, some (more often in keeping with Catholic tradition) emphasize behavioral righteousness. Often following Ziesler, many others believe that Paul always connotes something of both.

In Galatians, Paul clearly connects the sense of the noun (3:6, 21; 5:5) with the verb (2:16–17; 3:8, 11, 24; 5:4), raising the question as to whether we read the frequent moral sense of the noun (typically “justice, righteousness”) and adjective (“righteous,” in 3:11) into the verb or the frequent forensic sense of the verb (typically “justify”) into the noun. Because Paul often uses the verb and the noun in the same contexts, it seems clear that he uses them in a related way. His key text is Gen. 15:6 (Gal. 3:6), which uses the noun “righteousness.” The presence of the noun might suggest that he uses both terms behaviorally, except that the verb accounted (λογίζομαι, logizomai, often “reckoned”) may suggest a forensic verdict.

The adjective δίκαιος (“righteous”) in Paul’s intertext, Hab. 2:4 in Gal. 3:11, suggests that when one is put right with God (“justified”), one receives a righteous status that also defines the person’s identity. The antithesis in 2:17 might suggest the moral sense; the paraphrase of 3:6’s Genesis quotation in 3:8 equates the verb with accounting Abraham as righteous. Righteousness seems equated with being made alive in 3:21, echoing the righteous person living in 3:11.

With Paul depending on both such key terms, it seems likely that he welcomes readers to engage the fuller range of meaning. The verb normally does involve recognizing that someone is in the right or vindicating that person. In the Greek translation of the OT, to “justify” someone was also to “render justice” on their behalf (2 Sam. 15:4)—for example, defending the rights of the widow (Isa. 1:17) and the poor (Ps. 82:3 [LXX 81:3]). It designates not a legal fiction, but rather the recognition of someone as righteous, including in forensic contexts.

The verb δικαιόω (dikaioō) often has a forensic sense—that is, “justify,” “acquit.” The Septuagint normally uses the term to mean “recognize as righteous” (innocent in the matter at hand). Judges should not (Deut. 25:1; Isa. 5:23) and God will not (Exod. 23:7; 2 Chron. 6:23) acquit the guilty, but only the righteous. For God to (in shocking language) “justify the ungodly” (Rom. 4:5) meant no mere pardon, but rather that God made them no longer guilty, decreeing their status and identity anew (cf. 4:17).

Paul certainly does not believe that righteous status (or transformation) is merited. In Paul’s theology this decree remains righteous because of Christ (Rom. 3:23–26), but the principle still reflects OT language and ideas. Despite God’s justice in punishing Israel (Dan. 9:7, 14), he could be asked to forgive them according to his δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosunē, LXX 7:16). The Psalms look to God’s righteousness for his justice or mercy on the faithful petitioner’s behalf. God’s righteousness (translated in the NRSV and NET as “deliverance,” but in most translations simply as “righteousness”) brings forgiveness in Ps. 51:14. The plea for God’s righteousness and faithfulness in 143:1 explicitly excludes judging the psalmist according to his moral merit (143:2).

Israel hoped for God to justify them someday (Isa. 45:25; 50:8; 58:8). Thus one who sinned might be justly punished and yet hope for God to vindicate (using both δικαιόω and δικαιοσύνη, LXX Mic. 7:9). In the time of restoration, God would vindicate his people, so that no one could challenge them (Isa. 50:8, echoed in Rom. 8:33). Probably the most important text behind Paul’s usage, however, is Isa. 53:11, in which God’s servant would bear his people’s sins and therefore acquit them.

Such ideas remained accessible among many of Paul’s contemporaries. Paul’s own thought in his later teaching offers more holistic access to his thought world or at least to the axis on which it further developed. In Romans, Paul speaks of God’s own righteousness (Rom. 1:17; 3:5, 21–22; 10:3). Diaspora Jews often used this biblical covenant language for God’s just demands, but it can also include God’s faithfulness to fulfill his covenant promises (Neh. 9:8). This gracious sense endured in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as in the Greek translation of Psalms. Honoring the dedication of his servant, God’s righteousness would forgive the servant’s sin, cleanse him from it, and vindicate him. In the anthropological pessimism of 4 Ezra, the human plight was hopeless without God’s mercy. Thus many scholars suggest that divine righteousness involves not only punishing sin but also his covenant faithfulness vindicating his imperfect yet loyal people.

Galatians 2:11–21 addresses both forensic justification and union with Christ. If Paul can play on multiple senses of διαθήκη (diathēkē, “will, testament”) in 3:15, 17, and if he envisions conversion as both being righted and being born by means of the Spirit (4:29), perhaps we should not partition the senses the way their different renderings in English could suggest. If God’s declaration of light forms light, his decree of rightness should also enact a new creation (2 Cor. 4:6). One is “righted” with God. God, who puts people in the right forensically, also transforms them, whether or not (the debated issue) Paul uses “righteousness” to describe that transformation. The “transformative” righteousness view is the dominant view throughout most of church history.

In Galatians, righteousness comes by Christ rather than, as traditionally expected, the law (2:21 [though here the NRSV translates δικαιοσύνη, dikaiosunē, as “justification,” against most translations]; 3:21); the foretaste of this full righteousness is expressed in the present by faith working through love (5:5–6), displayed in the fruit of the Spirit (5:22–23). Because God speaks things into existence (cf. Rom. 4:17; 2 Cor. 4:6), when God acquits, he also brings into being a new creation, born from the Spirit (Gal. 4:29). Although the sense of δικαιόω (dikaioō) is a legitimate lexical debate, theologically and on a larger literary level Gal. 5:13–6:10 answers the probable claims of Paul’s critics that Paul’s gospel does not, without the law, produce righteousness.

Perhaps in a similar way, lexically, justification does not include the idea of joining God’s people. Because Paul treats converted gentiles as spiritual descendants of Abraham, however (Gal. 3:29), putting gentiles right with God has this consequence.

A CLOSER LOOK: “CHRIST-FAITH” (GAL. 2:16; 3:22)

The meaning of “Christ-faith” (Gal. 2:16; 3:22; Rom. 3:22) is one of the most vigorously debated points in Pauline theology today. Grammatically, a genitive construction such as πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou) simply means “faith relating to Christ.” More specifically, it could be an objective genitive (“faith in Christ”), the majority view (and the one defended below), or a subjective genitive (“Christ’s faith[fulness]”), or it could reflect some other relation between the two nouns. Some scholars question whether Paul wanted to exclude either reading.

In some respects this is not a new debate; in the thirteenth century, Robert Grosseteste listed some divergent approaches among the church fathers in regard to whose faith is mentioned in Hab. 2:4, an issue already raised by the divergence between the Hebrew text and its common Greek translation (see discussion at Gal. 3:11). Regarding the phrase πίστις Χριστοῦ, however, barely any early church father seems aware that it even could be translated as a subjective rather than an objective genitive. It appears significant that the Greek fathers, for most of whom Greek was their native language and who emphasized Christ’s obedience, nearly always read this phrase as “faith in Christ.” Catholics and Protestants alike have historically followed the objective-genitive reading, as do the main texts of nearly all translations. Comparatively few interpreters argued for the subjective-genitive reading before the 1970s, though some who did so (such as Karl Barth) are very significant figures, as are many of the subjective-genitive view’s proponents today.

On the subjective-genitive reading, it is Christ’s faithful obedience to the point of death that saves (Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:8), although the contexts never or at best extremely rarely expressly designate this obedience as πίστις.

Various arguments may support the subjective genitive, though some of these arguments have some weaknesses. Before the NT period, πίστις often appears with a subjective genitive; but then, trust in a particular object was rarely as important in other circles as it was in early Christianity. Moreover, πίστις, like other verbal nouns, does appear with the objective genitive in earlier Greek, contrary to some detractors.

Many advocates of the subjective-genitive understanding point out the redundancy of speaking of believing in Christ in the context if “faith of Christ” means the same thing. On the objective-genitive reading, of course, the recurrence is not redundant but emphatic. Moreover, this would hardly be Gal. 2:16’s only redundancy: Paul three times mentions law-works, with which he contrasts faith in Christ—an idea that also occurs three times if the verb phrase and noun phrase are synonymous. Indeed, some of the repetition may be arranged chiastically:

A justified not by the works of the law

B but through faith in Christ

B′ by faith in Christ

A′ not justified by the works of the law

Some arguments for the subjective-genitive reading here, however, are stronger. Thus, for example, one might expect “faith in Christ” to be expressed not as πίστις Χριστοῦ but as πίστις εἰς Χριστόν (pistis eis Christon), matching the verbal “believe in Christ” as in Col. 2:5.

One of the strongest arguments for the subjective genitive, one that would surely decide the case were there not (in my view) more compelling evidence in the other direction, is Paul’s clear use with respect to God’s faithfulness in Rom. 3:3. The same may be true for the faith of Abraham in Rom. 4:16. Sometimes πίστις with respect to Christ is clearly an objective genitive (James 2:1), but the Pauline passages where this might be the case are the ones under dispute. I find also tempting (though rarely supported) the possibility that Christ’s faith in Gal. 2:20 (reading the phrase there as a subjective genitive) supplies believers’ faith through their union with him (in which case πίστις could have its usual theocentric or christocentric sense in 5:22).

Yet, ultimately, Paul’s usage in particular contexts must decide the case. Supporters of the subjective genitive argue that contexts support their reading. I believe, however, that the contexts are much more intelligible on an objective-genitive reading (see the commentary on the relevant passages).

Some arguments for the objective genitive are surmountable, such as the expectation of an article with the subjective genitive; that would usually be the case, but a given writer’s Greek is not always predictable. Some argue that because the law-works are performed by people, the same must be true concerning Christ-faith; this is, however, a non sequitur, since the putative contrast between the two might be even better served by Christ-faith being something performed by God.

The arguments that I deem decisive for the objective-genitive reading are the cognate verb in the relevant contexts and what I see as the most natural exegesis of those contexts.

If Paul meant “Christ’s faithfulness,” we might expect him to explain that somewhere, but against the usual understanding of the subjective-genitive reading, Paul nowhere depicts Christ as believing or calls Jesus’s obedience “faithfulness.” That is, Jesus is nowhere the subject of the cognate verb πιστεύω (pisteuō), although Paul employs this verb a full forty-two times in his undisputed letters. Jesus is, by contrast, sometimes the specific object of that faith (e.g., Rom. 10:11; Phil. 1:29), including explicitly in Gal. 2:16 (we ourselves have committed our faith in Christ Jesus). (That tendency continues to constitute also the overwhelming preponderance of data in the other sources from the earliest Christian movement of which Paul was a part.) Indeed, even the adjective πιστός (pistos) (normally, “faithful”), though applied four times to God and once each to various other figures, never applies to Christ in Paul’s letters.

Granted, cognates do not always share the same range of meaning, but in this case they appear in the same contexts in clearly interdependent ways. For example, Abraham and his descendants believe (3:6–7, 9), and Scripture thus speaks of his gentile heirs being justified by faith (3:8). Moreover, Galatians (unlike Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:8) does not depict Christ “as acting toward God.”

When Paul introduces the potentially ambiguous πίστις Χριστοῦ in Gal. 2:16, he immediately disambiguates it by making Christ the object of the cognate verb. The phrase’s first use in Romans is also immediately disambiguated by designating human believers (Rom. 3:22); the following chapter expounds on Abraham’s faith as believing (Rom. 4:3, 5, 9, 11–14, 16–20, 24). Paul does not disambiguate in Phil. 3:9, perhaps because his audience in Philippi already understands his teaching, but in that letter he has already spoken of human faith (1:25, 27, 29; 2:17), including what appears to be an objective genitive with “faith in the gospel” (1:27); the context also includes a clearly objective genitive for Christ (“the knowledge of Christ”; NRSV: “knowing Christ”; 3:8).

Occasionally Paul also seems to use this expression as the equivalent of πίστις ἐν Χριστῷ (pistis en Christō) (Gal. 3:26; cf. Col. 1:4). Indeed, after introducing πίστις Χριστοῦ in Gal. 2:16, Paul continues to speak of those who are “of faith,” referring to believers (3:7, 8, 9, 22). For what it is worth, Luke understands Paul’s teaching about being righted to apply to the one who believes (Acts 13:39); the verb also appears in Rom. 4:5.

In the final analysis, although the differences in reading change our understanding of the passages in question, they do not require radically different readings of Pauline theology. In either case, Christ’s death and resurrection are what bring salvation, and in either case, it comes to those who trust in him. Faith in an unreliable object is worthless; trust in Christ for salvation is rightly placed precisely because Christ is reliable, worthy of trust. As E. P. Sanders notes, “No one wishes to exclude either ‘faith in Christ’ or ‘Christ’s faithfulness to God’ from Paul’s thought. The question is the best definition of the meaning of ‘faith in/of Christ’ in Galatians, where the phrase first appears.” Yet he rightly goes on to observe, “Of course the converts relied on Christ’s fidelity, but his fidelity alone did not transfer some people and not others into membership in his body.”

The argument that an objective-genitive reading emphasizes Christ’s work less than the subjective reading sidesteps the point that Christ’s work is, on the objective-genitive reading, the object of faith. As Bruce McCormack observes, the caricature sometimes presented of the objective-genitive position “would never have occurred to Luther. . . . Faith is not, for Luther, a human work to be ranged alongside observance of the law. It is a gift of God’s grace, effected by the Holy Spirit.”

After arguing for a subjective-genitive reading, Martinus de Boer rightly notes that even if one thinks of faith in Christ (language that he concedes appears in Romans and 1 Thessalonians), it “cannot be construed as an innate or natural human capacity, but only as an apocalyptic-eschatological novum . . . elicited by the proclamation of the gospel.” (Indeed, one plausible alternative to the debate, although compatible with the exegesis associated with objective-genitive readings, is a genitive of origin, thus, “the faith enabled by Christ.”) Faith in Christ is not misplaced faith precisely because Christ is faithful/trustworthy; a subjective-genitive reading becomes much more plausible if we think in terms of trusting Christ’s reliability. That is, on either reading, the honor belongs to Christ alone.

A CLOSER LOOK: LAW-WORKS (GAL. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10)

Historically, Paul speaks of the Torah, not simply of generic works. Paul’s problem with law-works is not that he opposes good works or even the law; rather, he merely rejects these as a means of justification as opposed to faith in Christ, possibly as a rhetorical forced choice that reduces to the absurd any dependence on something other than Christ. Thus some go so far as to suggest that Paul, who adopts the expression “law-works” from his opponents, actually sees these as sinful when performed by those under sin’s dominion (cf. Rom. 5:20; 6:14; 14:23; Phil. 3:9).

No major figures of mainstream Christian tradition, including the Reformers, dismiss the value of good works. Thus Luther welcomes Paul’s exhortations to good works that follow Paul establishing justification by faith. Luther in fact deemed the content of law-works as positive, since God gave the Torah; what was negative was seeking to be justified by them. For him, even “the ceremonial law is not evil unless one trusts in it.” Calvin goes further: “It is not our doctrine that justifying faith stands by itself. We maintain that it is always joined with good works. What we say is that faith alone is sufficient for justification, but true faith cannot be separated from the Spirit of regeneration.”

The phrase “works of the law” could include a subjective genitive (works produced or prescribed by the law), but it more likely uses an objective genitive (works done to observe the law). Thus the phrase semantically matches phrases such as “do/obey the law” (Rom. 2:14, 25, 27; Gal. 3:10; 5:3; 6:13) and “doers of the law” (Rom. 2:13). James Dunn suggests that whereas Paul’s opponents focused on how the covenant was expressed in the law, leading to the exclusion of gentiles, Paul looked to the covenant’s foundation in the promise, leading to blessing for the nations. Some suggest that the Galatians first learned the phrase from Paul’s rivals. This proposal may well be correct, though we cannot be sure, since the phrase itself is not an unusual expression.

The primary debate today is whether Paul meant all works prescribed by the law or particular boundary markers that separated Jew from gentile. The idea of law-works as boundary markers may be an old rather than recent insight. Jerome and Erasmus thought that Paul’s use of the phrase criticized only the ceremonial laws as outmoded. (Still, in Erasmus’s day, even his emphasis on inner piety versus rituals struck some churchmen as too close for comfort.) Similarly, Ambrosiaster valued the Ten Commandments and the OT ethos but, like many other interpreters of his era, doubted the continuing relevance of the ceremonial laws. The ninth-century commentator Haimo of Auxerre construed “works of the law” in terms of “offering fleshly sacrifices.” Thomas Aquinas also viewed “works of the law” here in terms of ceremonial laws, in which none should trust for salvation, in contrast with doing the law empowered by grace.

By contrast, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin believed that Paul criticized the God-given law as a whole. “Christ accomplishes too little,” Luther opined, “if he only frees us from circumcision, Sabbaths, clothing, foods, and ablutions and not from the far more serious sins against the law: lust, greed, wrath, ungodliness.” Earlier, Chrysostom felt that Paul rejected the law even as a guide for ethics. While the law may not remain mandatory as a legal code, however, church tradition was probably right to believe that it continues to provide moral instruction. Augustine may have thought that Paul’s greater concern involved ceremonial laws, addressing a more positive role for moral law in Gal. 5–6.

Luther applies the basic principle more broadly: if one could not be justified by God’s own law, then neither could one be justified by anything else (cf. 2:21), including rules created by the church. Many scholars, including myself, believe that Paul would appreciate such applications to broader concerns.

The initial exegetical task, however, is to determine, insofar as possible, the issues that Paul was addressing in his context. Thus, as noted above, scholars today particularly debate whether “law-works” refers specifically to problematic ethnic boundary markers or, as probably still a majority of scholars think, to the whole law.

Those who focus here on eating, circumcision, and holy days do so because these are the particular examples highlighted in the text (2:3, 12; 4:10; 5:2–3, 6, 11; 6:12–15). Along with proselytism, these are also the three major points of criticism against Jews found in Roman literature.

Circumcision was the key sign of God’s covenant with Abraham’s descendants. E. P. Sanders notes that despite Paul’s general language, “works of the law,” a particular work—namely, circumcision—is primarily at issue in Gal. 2:16 (cf. 2:3). We cannot know from silence that other issues were not a part of this, but nearly all scholars recognize that circumcision was the most vigorous point of contention in Galatians. At issue, then, Sanders argues, was whether one had to become part of the Jewish people in order to be a Christian.

At the same time, the phrase itself does not have such a restrictive meaning. Indeed, as E. P. Sanders also points out, Jewish teachers averred that disregarding one commandment de facto cast off the entire law. What did “works of the law” mean in early Judaism? The phrase appears in 4QMMT in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in (like Galatians) what might be a letter addressing moral issues: “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. . . . And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before Him.” Certainly this passage at least suggests that the phrase was in use among some of Paul’s Judean contemporaries. Here the group’s sectarian interpretation of the law is commended and even linked to justification. (As is the case with Galatians, the same document speaks also of blessings and curses.) Citing this passage, James Dunn suggests that “works of the law” represents the community’s sectarian halakah on sacrificial and purity regulations. Thus, in Gal. 2:16 he thinks that analogously it relates to group membership.

The Qumran sectarians probably did not define the phrase technically, however; it related to other righteous “works.” “Works of the law” even at Qumran referred to the entire law, though of course as understood via the community’s sectarian lens.

Elsewhere in Galatians Paul does speak of the need to perform the whole law (Gal. 3:10b; 5:3). That is probably also how first-century Jews understood the phrase.

Nevertheless, those who emphasize that Paul speaks of the entire law also recognize the relevance of the Jewish-gentile issue in Galatians. Thus, for example, Thomas Schreiner adds, “This is not to deny that boundary markers were the presenting issue at Galatia.” Moisés Silva says that the phrase refers to “the law as a whole,” yet refers to “national badges” and recognizes that it is “quite possible that the ceremonial elements of the law are in the forefront.”

Likewise, Dunn, who emphasized boundary markers, has clarified that although he meant especially boundary markers, he never intended to deny that the phrase “works of the law” included the entire law. That “point is not in dispute,” he notes, but “in the context of [Gal.] 2.11–17, ‘to do the law’ meant ‘separating’ from ‘Gentile sinners’ and ‘living the (distinctively) Jewish way of life.’ This is why the phrase here has such a negative tone, although ‘doing the law’ was/is in itself a good thing.” (Despite criticisms, his earlier commentary did not actually deny that wider meaning.) Thus a consensus seems to be emerging regarding at least the general point: Paul intended any of the law, but the issues at hand were especially those issues that particularly defined one as having become Jewish—in Galatians, most prominently circumcision (Gal. 2:3, 12; 5:2–3, 6, 11; 6:12–13, 15).

Paul gives here the reason (That is because, Greek ὅτι, hoti) that a person cannot be justified by the works of the law: That is because nobody will be righted with God on the basis of law-works. At first this reason might sound tautological, but Paul is providing an implicit argument for those familiar with Scripture, at least with psalms used in worship; he is evoking biblical language. The psalmist pleaded with God not to judge his servant, because no one living is righteous by God’s standards (Ps. 143:2). Paul evokes the passage in the Greek translation (LXX 142:2) familiar to his hearers, which renders the second line, “because no one living will be justified / found righteous before you,” overlapping with Paul in the words nobody will be righted with God. The psalm is indeed apropros to Paul’s larger message. The psalmist goes on to plead for God to deliver him from his enemies (143:9) and to preserve his life because of God’s righteousness (143:11) and steadfast love (143:12), and because the psalmist trusts in him (143:8; in LXX 142:8, the psalmist has hoped in him).

Paul makes slight adjustments in the wording, which was common practice when one quoted Scripture or other sources in new contexts. “No one living” becomes “no flesh” (my nobody), perhaps because Paul reserves terminology about life mostly for new life in Christ (2:19–20; 3:11–12; 5:25; 6:8; though cf. 2:14), and Paul will use “flesh” mostly negatively in 3:3; 4:29; 5:13, 16–19, 24; 6:8, 12–13. The change, however, also draws on a common LXX expression, including for humanity’s mortality or judgment (e.g., Isa. 40:6; 66:16).

The other change, of course, is to apply the general principle of no one being justified before God to the specific matter of no one being righted with God on the basis of law-works. This specific application remains consistent with the point of a psalm whose author depends wholly on God’s righteousness. That Paul applies the text the same way with roughly the same adjustments in Rom. 3:20 may suggest that it functioned this way, or came to function this way, regularly in his preaching.

As in the case of the more explicit citations in Rom. 3:10–19, no one was likely to dispute Paul’s exegesis here, primarily because no one would disagree with the uncontroversial premise. Jewish tradition recognized that all people sin, and the thought would not be controversial among gentiles either (though defining moral error more broadly). Some Jewish sources made exceptions for special figures of the past, such as Abraham or Moses, but even had Paul allowed such exceptions, no member of his audience would assume that they belong to this specially heroic class of sinless perfection. Works of the law could not justify anyone because no one is sinless (presupposed also in 3:10, 12, 21–22).

2:17

17“But if, while we are seeking to be righted with God in Christ, we ourselves have also been found to be sinners, doesn’t that make Christ a facilitator of sin? No way!

Scholars debate the sense of 2:17. One might suppose that Paul uses here the pedagogic style of diatribe, with questions to a rhetorical interlocutor; but it is likelier that within the narrative world Paul continues to directly address Peter. Some scholars argue that Paul in fact accepts here that Christians remain sinners, or that the verse suggests that Jewish Christians and not just gentile Christians are sinners. Although this approach can legitimately claim some grammatical support, on the basis of context I find another approach to be more helpful.

All have sinned (2:16), making the specific association of gentiles with sin (2:15) a superfluous red herring. But Paul pushes this red herring further toward its absurd conclusion in 2:17. There are a variety of interpretations of 2:17. The likeliest sense in this context, though, is one that flows directly from the incident narrated in 2:11–14; Paul continues to address Peter here. If eating with gentiles is really as sinful as Peter’s Judean critics seem to think, and as Peter’s withdrawal from gentiles (had it not been hypocritical) would seem to acknowledge, then Peter, Paul, and other Jews who were eating with gentiles sinned through following Christ in welcoming gentile Christians. (As noted earlier, Paul probably knows Peter’s experience of Jesus eating with “sinners.”) And if that is the case, then it is following Christ that led them into sin—something their non-Christian critics might insist but something that no Christian would concede. Thus Paul protests, μὴ γένοιτο (mē genoito), No way! (In diatribe, such a phrase often ends a particular line of reasoning, though Paul is not finished here.)

Paul is pressing commitment to Christ to its conclusion: everything else must be evaluated relative to the truth of Christ. Thus, as John Barclay puts it, one must “either abandon Christ in reinstating the authority of the Torah, or challenge the Torah’s definition of ‘sin.’”

2:18

18“For if I rebuild the things that I once tore down, I show myself to be a transgressor.

Paul shifts from “we” to “I” in 2:18, possibly partly to shift the focus from the debate in Antioch to the present or for various other reasons, but perhaps simply to make the illustration more rhetorically palatable. Peter, Paul, and other believers had, in Christ, torn down (2:18) the barrier between Jew and gentile in the law, which separated Jews as an exclusively holy people (cf. Eph. 2:14). (Paul might think here also of a fence around the law. The term Paul uses for tore down here, καταλύω [kataluō], also could apply to annulling or repealing laws.) Building that wall up again by withdrawing from gentiles would imply that their previous eating with gentiles was transgression (2:18).

2:19

19“For through the law I died with respect to the law so that I might live with respect to God. I’ve been crucified with Christ;

But Paul died with respect to the law so that he might live with respect to God (2:19). Paul experienced this death at his conversion; this passage echoes 1:13–16 at some key points. In this death he has been crucified with Christ (2:19). In Christ the law, which separates God’s holy people from gentile sinners, is no longer the ultimate norm for ethics; instead, the empowering resurrection life of Christ within (2:19–20), expressed by Paul also as the fruit of the Spirit (5:16–25), causes believers to do God’s will. In this context, God’s will includes embracing other sinners saved by God’s grace in Christ, including gentiles.

Paul was crucified with Christ to the law, just as Christ was born under law to redeem those under law (4:4–5)—that is, Christ identified with his people. Paul’s more detailed elaboration of this idea in Romans helps us understand the premises of his argument: Christ died to sin (Rom. 6:10) so that those identified with him died with him (6:3–8, 11). Believers died to the law through Christ’s body (7:4); the old person (in Adam) thus died (6:6), and a new person lives in Christ (Gal. 2:20). The principle of solidarity with Christ here resembles the solidarity of descent: Paul’s opponents envisioned an ethnic solidarity with their ancestor Abraham, whereas Paul envisioned an ancestral solidarity with Adam (Rom. 5:12–21) and a supraethnic, spiritual solidarity with Abraham and especially Christ through adherence to Christ and becoming part of his people. (Thus one from Abraham was part of Abraham; one from Adam was part of Adam; but in a more spiritual and not simply genetic way, those in Christ were his very body; see Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 10:17; 12:12–13.)

But how did Paul die to the law through the law (2:19)? Just as the Galatians may not have caught all the nuances of Paul’s biblical interpretation, some of his other arguments were probably lost on them—and us. Pauline theology allows us to explain through the law here in multiple ways.

In this case, the first two or three explanations, which are mutually consistent now that the fullness of time has come, seem most relevant here because of the context. The law retains value (Gal. 5:14) but as approached now from the vantage point of its eschatological fulfillment and embodiment in Christ and his approach to the law (6:2).

The expression live with respect to God (ζάω θεῷ, zaō theō, 2:19; Rom. 6:10–11; cf. Rom. 14:8; 2 Cor. 5:15) echoes an expression from the Jewish martyr tradition. The patriarchs and all the righteous live rather than die with respect to God, even if they must die on account of God (4 Macc. 7:19; 16:25). Thus live with respect to God evokes the tradition of martyrs who live for God by refusing to compromise his law. For Paul, however, faithfulness to the law and to God led him to welcome the new phase in salvation history in Christ (Gal. 3:19–4:7). Now Paul lives to God because Christ (2:20) and the Spirit (5:25; 6:8; cf. 3:11) live in him.

In this context, Paul’s crucifixion with Christ is especially to the law (Gal. 2:19; cf. Rom. 7:4, 6), but in Paul’s thought it is not by any means limited to that. Perhaps he died to the law precisely because his death to sin and the world (cf. Gal. 5:24; 6:14; Rom. 6:2, 10–11; Col. 2:20) rendered his traditional approach to the law unnecessary (Gal. 5:14, 18, 23b). Indeed, sharing Christ’s death (2 Cor. 4:11–12), like preaching it (1 Cor. 1:17–18; 2:2, 8; 2 Cor. 13:4), offers a challenge to all worldly notions of power and prestige. In this context, the Galatians themselves reexperienced Christ’s crucifixion in Paul’s life and/or preaching (Gal. 3:1).

2:20

20“and it’s no longer I myself who live, but Christ lives in me. I’m now living in this body by faith in God’s Son, who loved me and gave himself on my behalf.

Now it is Christ who lives in Paul (2:20), just as he elsewhere speaks of Christ and the Spirit living in believers (Rom. 8:9–10). As Paul will go on to speak of the Galatians having received the Spirit (Gal. 3:2), and he will speak of all believers living by the Spirit (5:25), Christ living in a person is clearly associated with the Spirit living in a person. (Paul does not fully identify Christ with the Spirit, pace some readings of 1 Cor. 15:45 and 2 Cor. 3:17, but he does associate them so closely that he can speak of the Spirit of Christ in Rom. 8:9; Phil. 1:19; cf. Acts 16:7.) The Spirit authors resurrection life (Gal. 6:8; Rom. 1:4; 8:2, 6, 10–11, 13; 2 Cor. 3:6; cf. John 6:63; 1 Pet. 3:18; Rev. 11:11); the mention of “living” here is thus significant. What Paul means by the phrase “live by faith in the Son of God” (NRSV, NASB, NIV, ESV) will also become clearer when he addresses life by faith in Gal. 3:11.

With a primary background in Ezek. 36:27 (cf. 2 Cor. 3:3), Pauline literature often speaks of sharing Christ’s death and resurrection and of Christ’s risen life active in believers (or special ministers) through the Spirit. In Eph. 3:20, God’s power works in Christians, according to the greatest example of his power—Jesus’s resurrection, the beginning of the new creation (Eph. 1:20; cf. Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:43–44).

It’s no longer I myself who live, but Christ lives in me offers an example of two balanced clauses, an attractive rhetorical form. With another sort of balance, the believer lives both in the flesh (ἐν σαρκί [en sarki], in a neutral sense, that is, in the body) and in or by faith (ἐν πίστει, en pistei) in Jesus (2:20). Paul can use expressions such as no longer I, but with reference to other powers ruling one’s will (Rom. 7:17, 20); one needs the rule of the Spirit to combat the rule of sin (Gal. 5:16–18). Everyone could tell the difference between Paul’s preconversion life, zealous merely for the law (1:13–14), and his new life devoted to Christ; it was Christ in him that made the difference.

Some writers speak of this relationship in terms of mysticism, usually in a qualified way, whereas others object to such language. The matter depends partly on how one defines mysticism. Aside from misreading Hellenistic evidence, older comparisons with Hellenistic mysticism miss significant differences. There is not an obliteration of Paul’s identity, but neither is the description merely forensic. Comparisons with Stoic cognitive realignment are thus also by themselves inadequate.

Bridging Horizons

E. P. Sanders rightly objects to Rudolf Bultmann’s purely existential revision of Paul’s understanding of union with Christ and being one body with him, noting that modern Western readers tend to lack a category or analogies to articulate Pauline and early Christian experience. Earlier interpreters, however, engaged this reality more readily, allowing for experience in a less sterile way than modern critics. Origen speaks of Christ being in all saints; Chrysostom understands Paul as saying that believers become one with Christ “in kind and form.” The ninth-century Haimo of Auxerre glosses “lives” as “lives or reigns.” More forcefully (and perhaps hyperbolically), Bruno the Carthusian in the late eleventh century proclaims, “I myself live by having become Christ himself, by having been conformed to him.” In light of the context, Peter Lombard in the twelfth century rightly interprets thus: “The righteousness in me is not my own but instead belongs to Christ.”

Desiderius Erasmus speaks of God’s Spirit governing all one’s acts “according to his will and pleasure.” Martin Luther declares that Paul here shares in Christ’s death for him, in a way greater than imitation; Paul “was no longer an independent agent, because Christ and his conscience have been joined as it were in one body, so that nothing remains except Christ, crucified and risen.” Calvin seems still more emphatic:

Grafted into the death of Christ, we derive a secret energy from it, as the shoot does from the root. . . . Paul does not live by his own life but is animated by the secret power of Christ. Just as the soul quickens the body, so Christ imparts life to his members. . . . Christ lives in us in two ways. First, he governs us by his Spirit and directs all our actions. Second, he grants us a share in his righteousness so that, since we can do nothing by ourselves, we are accepted in him by God. The first is linked to regeneration and the second to the free acceptance of righteousness.

This reality is also probably more intelligible in the growing experientially oriented movements in global Christianity.

What some call union with Christ does not make Paul literally part of Christ’s person, but God’s Spirit so suffuses Paul’s person that God works in and through Paul, transforming him into what he was designed to be in Christ’s image (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18). This is a step far beyond even a relationship of companionship, an intimacy through a continuous internal presence too complete for the closest possible analogies (such as perhaps marital intimacy; cf. 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:30–32) to be fully adequate. Obviously, such a relationship has an experiential component, though various believers may experience it in somewhat different ways. The relationship includes mutual dwelling and frequent recognition of this reality experientially, but founded on the objective action of Christ’s sacrifice for us.

The Spirit transforms and empowers the self rather than obliterates it; divine activity shapes human agency rather than replaces it. Fluid images of the Spirit (e.g., Isa. 44:3; Joel 2:28) also may facilitate an image of how some dry substances may remain in some sense the same and yet are transformed by being soaked or suffused with fluid.

God’s Son loved me and gave himself on my behalf. Some philosophers and religious devotees did speak in terms of personal relationship with God or deities, but deities were more often feared and placated. Some philosophers, most typically Stoics, spoke of the supreme deity dwelling in humans, especially in intellectuals, but this was rarely envisioned in terms of a personal relationship with the deity. Some thinkers spoke of particular deities loving or being loved by people, but this was quite rare in this period; Greek religion tended to stress barter and obligation. Indeed, Platonically inclined philosophers affirmed the passionlessness of deity.

This passage’s emphasis on divine love more closely resembles Jewish tradition, where God loves his people corporately, as well as various individuals or the righteous in general. Some even emphasized that God loved each individual Israelite more than the nations, though some Diaspora Jews recognized that God loved all humanity.

Jewish tradition did not, however, emphasize the Messiah’s love, as here; for Paul, of course, Jesus is a real person, not a theoretical messiah, and Jesus is also divine (cf. again comment on Gal. 1:1, 3). Nor did non-Christian traditions highlight divine love the way that we find it here: a divine one sacrificing his own life for us—for sinners (cf. Gal. 2:15; Rom. 5:6–10).

The term translated as gave here was also used for handing someone over for custody or punishment (Mark 14:44; 15:1, 10, 15), but it applies here to Jesus handing over his own life (cf. John 19:30). Against those who depict Paul’s theology of atonement through Christ’s death as divine child abuse, Gal. 2:20 instead shows that not only the Father (Rom. 4:25; 8:32) but also Jesus himself chose to give Jesus in death to save sinners (as also in Eph. 5:2, 25). Christ gave himself also “without regard to the [moral] worth of the recipients. Because it is incongruous, this gift bypasses and subverts preexisting norms.”

Paul continues the first-person voice and apparently thereby underlines the personal dimension of this experience; as Chrysostom suggests, “Paul speaks in this highly personal voice,” just as the prophets often called God “my God”; “He shows that each of us ought to render as much thanks to Christ as though Christ had come for him alone. For God would not have withheld this gift even from one person. He has the same love for every individual as for the whole world.” Likewise Calvin: Why “for me”? Because “We each need to apply to ourselves individually. . . . It is for each one of us as individuals.”

Trust is appropriate to the extent that its object is trustworthy; God’s Son, who loved me and gave himself on my behalf, is a wholly reliable object of trust, so Paul lives by faith in God’s Son (Gal. 2:20). Although Paul remains in the flesh, embodied with all the needs and passions that embodiedness implies (5:24), it is in faith in God’s Son that he lives—that is, experiences already the promised resurrection life of the coming age (2:19–20; 3:11; 5:25; 6:8; cf. 1:4). Trust is the appropriate response to benefaction, and the infinitely valuable character of the gift here merits unlimited trust.

Just as one is put right with God through trusting Christ, it is in faith that one lives this solidarity with Christ. The idea here is similar to Rom. 6:11: one appropriates Christ’s work behaviorally by reckoning oneself dead and raised with Christ. In this age believers remain in the flesh, subject to its challenges (note the sense of σάρξ [sarx], “flesh,” in Gal. 3:3; 5:13, 16–17, 19, 24; 6:8; though this is less clear in the antecedent references of 1:16 and 2:16), but by faith in Christ’s victory believers can live the new life by Christ, who lives in us.

One reckons oneself as in Christ. This might resemble imaginatively adopting the persona of Christ, “putting on” Christ (3:27) as if walking in his steps. It is, however, more than mere play-acting (cf. comment on 2:13); it is embracing divine truth because of what Christ has done. It includes imitating Christ by living as he lived (each within the sphere of one’s own calling and gifting; 1 Cor. 11:1; Eph. 5:1; 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 John 2:6). Yet it can also be envisioned as walking in the way we know Christ walked because we affirm that Christ is living in us and his path therefore exemplifies for us how to embrace Christ living in us (2 Cor. 13:3–5; Eph. 5:2; Col. 2:6; cf. Gal. 5:16–25; 6:2).

2:21

21“I don’t nullify God’s generosity [grace]; for if being righted is through the law, then Christ died for nothing!”

Paul refuses to nullify God’s generosity. The word translated as nullify can also mean to reject something as invalid or by refusing to recognize it (BDAG). God’s gracious gift was Christ’s own life offered in death (2:20). To nullify or invalidate the gift is to reject it. To refuse a gift was to insult and shame the giver and even declare enmity; the ancient expectation was that one would respond to a gift by honoring and showing fidelity to the benefactor. Despite the diversity of Second Temple Judaism, virtually all Jews identified “the Torah as the definition of virtue or righteousness.” Yet if righteousness came by the law, Christ need not have died. But because he died for us, Paul implies, we must either accept the gift or reject it—choosing friendship with or enmity toward God.

More fully than Gal. 2:21, 3:21 sheds light on the failure of the law to provide justification: giving life was not the law’s purpose. The problem, then, is not with the law per se, as if it is unrighteous in itself; rather, the problem is with trying to be justified by the law. The problem with law is not that it is wrong to observe it, but that it is wrong to believe that doing so makes one right with God. And if not God’s own law, Paul would insist, then neither anything else (cf. 4:8–9) except Christ; apparently no other way of our salvation was possible in a moral universe.

If righteousness came by the law—in this context including the law as it made Peter separate from eating with gentiles (2:12)—then Christ died for nothing. Since this conclusion is as absurd to Peter, as a believer, as the idea that Christ enabled sin (2:17), it concludes Paul’s reproof to Peter based on the gospel. Now that Christ has come, he, rather than the law, brings one into accord with God’s will. Thus one must choose between the law’s way of separation and Christ’s way of table fellowship with all comers ready to embrace his reign. It was common to conclude an argument with a closing summary, and scholars often find such a conclusion in Paul’s closing words to Peter here in 2:21.

. See esp. Lyons, Autobiography. On ancient autobiography, see concisely Aune, Rhetoric, 68–70; on ancient biography, see more extensively Keener and Wright, Biographies; for biographic material in letters, see Trapp, “Biography,” 340–41. For comparison with earlier biblical memoirs, see Martyn, Galatians, 160; McEntire, “Letters.”

. Cf. Lake, “Council,” 195. Some details in Acts may be Luke’s elaboration, and some others may come from sources closer to Paul’s critics (though probably fewer than supposed in Townsend, “Acts 9:1–29,” 97–98).

. Pages 102–3.

. Rhet. Her. 1.9.15 recommends this practice for setting forth a case’s facts; cf. also Hermogenes, Issues 47.8–11 (for prosecution).

. Forbes, “Self-Praise”; Marshall, Enmity, 124–29.

. E.g., Cicero, Quinct. 3.11–9.33; here, Betz, Galatians, 58–59.

. Lyons, Autobiography, 175; Witherington, Grace, 29, citing, e.g., Aristotle, Rhet. 3.16.11; Quintilian, Inst. 3.8.8–10, and noting, following Mitchell (Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 39–46), that they often appear in deliberative rhetoric (Rhet. Her. 3.5.9; Cicero, De or. 2.335; Quintilian, Inst. 3.8.36, 66).

. E.g., he omits naming teachers here, in contrast to Cicero, Inv. 1.25.35, and Acts 22:3; cf. Hock, “Paul and Education,” 213.

. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 1.6.3–5; cf. Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 15.1.1; 37.4.1.

. Polybius, Hist. 3.31.11–13; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 37.4.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 5.56.1; Herodian, Hist. 3.13.3; 4 Macc. 1:7–8; for biblical models, cf. Philo, Abraham 4; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.204. The study of history was meant to promote virtue; see Polybius, Hist. 1.1.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 1.2.1; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 2.pref.; Tacitus, Agr. 1; Ann. 3.65; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 22.5.

. Cf. Koptak, “Identification”; Wiarda, “Plot.” The connection between Paul’s experience and theirs could facilitate identification in the interest of healing their relationship (cf. Gignac, “Approche”).

. Paul’s revelations presuppose an epistemology foreign to most modern Westerners; see Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 153–204; esp. Abraham, “Offense.” They disturbed even some who shared Paul’s epistemology but not his experience (Sim, “Appearances”).

. Pace the NRSV’s interpretive insertion “no doubt,” Paul presumably recounted his story early in his preaching in Galatia; it would have proved particularly relevant where there were conflicts with advocates of more traditional Jewish approaches (cf. Acts 13:45, 50; 14:2–5, 19). Paul apparently told his stories often (1 Cor. 15:8–9, 32; 2 Cor. 1:8–11; 11:32–33; Phil. 3:4–7), and word about his conversion spread even apart from him (Gal. 1:23).

. Cf. Tob. 12:19; Acts 1:3; Luke 24:39–40; Goppelt, Times, 18–19; Schweizer, Jesus, 48–49; Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 97–103; Sanders, Figure, 280; discussion in Keener, Acts, 2:1606–7; pace Mack, Myth, 308.

. See Kim, Origin, 332; Bruce, Apostle, 80.

. For Paul’s encounter shaping his experience, see Kim, Origin.

. For greater detail here, see Keener, Acts, 2:1614–17.

. For a survey of the varied explanations to Paul’s conversion, see Corley, “Interpreting Paul’s Conversion.”

. Copestake, “How Neurotic?,” replying to Barker, Church’s Neurosis.

. See summary in Corley, “Interpreting Paul’s Conversion,” 13–15.

. Rubenstein, Paul, 48; more recently, Clerget, “Lumière”; and (without reductionism) Ellens, Light, 109. See the critique of such approaches in Segal, Convert, 294. Various stimuli can generate trance states in normal people (Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 39; Prince, “EEG,” 122–25, 131; Bourguignon, “Introduction,” 14).

. See esp. Segal, Convert, 299.

. Earlier studies include James, “Self”; Thouless, “Psychology”; see, avoiding reductionism, Oates, “Conversion.”

. Munck, Salvation, 11–13; Hurtado, “Convert.”

. Witherington, Grace, 108–9.

. Segal, Convert, 16. For some modern studies, see, e.g., Sanders, “Slavery and Conversion”; Eigo, Experience; Gillespie, Dynamics; in antiquity, see, e.g., Gallagher, “Conversion.” For comparisons with Paul, see, e.g., Theissen, “Nasir Khusraw”; Lamoreaux, “Identity.”

. See, e.g., MacMullen, “Conversion”; Nock, Conversion; Eshleman, “Affection”; Bamberger, Proselytism; Goodman, “Proselytizing”; Cohen, “Conversion”; Feldman, “Conversion.”

. Segal, Convert, 34–71; cf. Bowker, “Visions.”

. Cf. Philip, Pneumatology, 177–81, 194–95. See further Keener, Acts, 2:1609; on Acts 9, cf. Hubbard, “Commissioning Accounts”; Ukachukwu Manus, “Conversion Narratives”; for OT commissioning accounts, see, e.g., Phinney, “Narratives.”

. Stendahl, Paul, 7–8; Ladd, Theology, 368; Ashton, Religion, 75–76.

. Donaldson, Gentiles, 17, 302; Dunn, Galatians, 3; Dunn, Acts, 119–20.

. Boyarin, “Response,” 26–27.

. Sanders, Paul, 101–2.

. See, e.g., Segal, Convert, 32–33; Elsdon, “Converted”; Campbell, Deliverance, 166.

. Witherington, Grace, 112–13 (following Barrett, Freedom, 110n7); Roetzel, Paul, 10–14; Boccaccini, “Introduction,” 5; Haacker, Theology, 9–10 (noting also both aspects in 1 Tim. 1:12–16); Elsdon, “Converted.”

. Segal, Convert, 28–29, though his observations about community are less relevant to abrupt and isolated conversions such as Paul’s (cf. the description in Betz, Galatians, 66–67).

. Although the term ἀναστροφή (anastrophē, “way of life”) was in common use by the time Paul wrote Galatians, in this context it might possibly evoke 2 Macc. 6:23, another devoted pietist’s faithfulness to the law from his childhood.

. Opposition to the temple appears among Samaritans (Josephus, Ant. 13.74–79; 18.30; Luke 9:51–53; John 4:20; y. ʿAbod. Zar. 5:4, §3; Gen. Rab. 32:10; 64:10; 81:3) and various marginal Judean groups (1QpHab 9.6–7; cf. Josephus, J.W. 6.301; T. Mos. 5:4; 6:8–9; T. Levi 15:1), all of which faced at least disdain from mainstream Judeans. Still, many did hope for an eschatological temple; see 1 En. 90:28–29; 11Q19 29.8–10; the seventeenth benediction of the Amidah.

. Amir, “Ἰουδαϊσμός”; Dunn, Galatians, 56–57; Novenson, “Occupation,” 32–34, 39; Oakes, Galatians, 53; Hurtado, Destroyer, 41; cf. Lightfoot, Galatians, 81; pace Moo, Galatians, 100. Cf. discussion in Sänger, “Ἰουδαισμός.”

. CIJ 694 in Novenson, “Occupation,” 33. See discussion of LXX Esther 8:17 in the commentary on Gal. 2:14 (p. 164).

. Among Pharisees, Judean nationalism may reflect Shammaites more than Hillelites (Wright, Founder, 26, 29–30; cf. Falk, Jesus, 24–33, 75; but see Keener, Acts, 3:3215–20). The depiction by Josephus (Ant. 18.23) of a Pharisaic-oriented “fourth sect” sounds more extremist in antigentile sentiment than negative Hillelite depictions of Shammaites. If in Josephus, Ant. 15.3, 370, “Samaias” refers to Shammai, he may have been pro-Herod. Alleged Shammaite violence (e.g., y. Šabb. 1:4) does not characterize the earliest sources (Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 87–88).

. The term ὑπερβολή (huperbolē, “viciously” or “violently”) in 1:13 reflects a Greek expression for abundance, distinctive in the NT to Paul (Rom. 7:13; 1 Cor. 12:31; 2 Cor. 1:8; 4:17) though hardly unique to him in antiquity.

. In 1 Macc. 2:46, they “circumcised all the uncircumcised boys that they found” (NRSV) in Judea.

. See, e.g., 1QpHab 8.8–12; 9.4–7; 12.5; 4Q169 1.11; Josephus, Ant. 18.17; m. Yad. 4:7; t. Ḥag. 3:35; t. Nid. 5:3; Brown, Death, 393–95; for other intra-Jewish conflicts, see further Josephus, Life 272–75, 302–3.

. So rightly Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 36–38, 90; Kim, Origin, 33–34. Paul uses the phrase for the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 1:2; 11:22; 2 Cor. 1:1) but also probably for the universal church (1 Cor. 10:32; cf. Acts 20:28), though when he persecuted it, it was mostly in Judea (1 Cor. 15:9).

. Dunn, Galatians, 58; Oakes, Galatians, 54; cf. Ridderbos, Epistle, 60.

. Reading this as a conative use of the imperfect (BDF §326; cf. Acts 26:11), or perhaps that the action was in progress (BDF §327) or beginning (BDF §331).

. Cf. here George, Identity, 116.

. Donaldson, “Zealot and Convert”; Donaldson, Gentiles, 284. This could fit the early Christian identification of Christ as divine Wisdom (1 Cor. 1:30; Col. 1:15; cf. Bar. 3:28; 3:36–4:1; Wis. 7:26).

. Donaldson, Gentiles, 288.

. E.g., Quintilian, Inst. 2.7.1; Lucian, Soph. 6; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 1.17.4.

. E.g., Isocrates, Demon. 12; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.1.91; see Judge, Athens, 261.

. E.g., Cicero, Fin. 4.24.66–68; Aristippus in Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.93. On Stoic ideal types, see Keener, Mind, 122–25.

. See Plutarch, How One May Become Aware of One’s Progress in Virtue (Mor. 75A–86A), e.g., on degrees of progress in the soul (Progr. Virt. 3 [Mor. 76B]); cf. Philodemus, Death 17.37–38; 18.10–11; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 18.80–81; Stowers, “Resemble Philosophy?,” 91.

. Cicero, Fin. 4.24.67; Seneca Y., Lucil. 87.4–5; 94.50; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.4; 2.17.39–40; Ench. 12–13; 51.2; Lucian, Hermot. 63; cf. Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.7, p. 44.26; earlier, Zeno in Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.1.25; cf. Motto, “Progress,” including individual progress; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 70–72.

. Deming, “Indifferent Things,” 390; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 109.

. E.g., Apuleius, Flor. 16.36–37; cf. Aristaenetus, Erotic Letters 1.10, line 74.

. E.g., Suetonius, Gramm. 17; cf. Dan. 1:10.

. Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.11, 420.20–21; see, e.g., Cicero, Phil. 14.10.28.

. Polybius, Hist. 31.25.2; 31.29.12; Cicero, Pis. 1.2; Caec. 13.41; Brut. 93.323; cf. Symmachus, Ep. 1.2.3–4. At least Cicero was, however, excessive in his youthful self-image (Plutarch, Cic. 6.3–4).

. Josephus, Ant. 20.263.

. Philostratus, Her. 21.6.

. Josephus, Life 80; cf. Socrates in Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.41.

. Sophocles, Antig. 726–27; Philostratus, Her. 33.13.

. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 2:1447–53, 1621–22.

. Jewett, “Shame,” 558–59.

. On Jewish education, see, e.g., Légasse, “Career,” 375–77; Watson, “Education,” 312; Hogan, Goff, and Wasserman, Pedagogy; discussion in Keener, Acts, 2:1387; 3:3208–15.

. Josephus, Ant. 20.264; cf. Sir. 15:1.

. Josephus, Life 8 (noted here by Witherington, Grace, 101). For other youthful prodigy claims, see, e.g., Luke 2:46–47; Xenophon, Cyr. 1.3.1–18; Herodotus, Hist. 1.113–15; Pindar, Nem. 43–49; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 3.1.1; 3.1.2ab; Pliny E., Nat. 7.16.72; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.7, 11; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 2.10; Eunapius, Lives 468; cf. the adult Akiba in ʾAbot R. Nat. 6A; Ytterbrink (Gospel, 73–74) cites Seneca Y., Lucil. 23.3.

. Josephus, Life 9. Even though at fourteen a mature Judean might be counted an adult (more generally, see Wiesehöfer, “Youth,” 854), seniority still normally mattered, so this is a significant claim (cf. Luke 2:42, 46–47).

. Josephus, Life 12. Paul’s introduction to Pharisaism was likely at a younger age (cf. Acts 7:58; 22:3; 23:6).

. Cf., e.g., Josephus, Ant. 18.142; προκοπή (prokopē) in Phil. 1:12, 25; 1 Tim. 4:15.

. Cf. Luke 2:52; Josephus, Life 8; προκοπή (prokopē) in Sir. 51:17.

. E.g., Philo, Sacrifices 7; Worse 5, 12; Alleg. Interp. 3.140, 144, 159, 196; cf. prokopē in Philo, Posterity 97.

. Flight 202.

. For age-peers, cf., e.g., Aristaenetus, Erotic Letters 1.10, lines 41, 74 (pp. 22, 24). Teaching could be age specific (e.g., Aeschines, Tim. 7; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 31.201–3; 1 John 2:12–14), and orators could greet people by age groups (Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.4, 392.5–8; 394.21–22).

. E.g., Jer. 1:6; Sir. 51:13–14; Sus. 50; Wis. 8:10; Josephus, Life 80; Ant. 10.50; Xenophon, Cyr. 1.4.3; Herodotus, Hist. 1.113–15; Cicero, Phil. 14.10.28; Justin, Epit. 12.16.7–8; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 3.1.1; 3.1.2ab; Pliny E., Nat. 7.16.72; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.7–8, 11; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 2.10–11; cf. Fronto, M. Caes. 4.1; the Latin funerary inscription of Quintus Sulpicius Maximus and lines 1–2 of the Greek epigram (in Wright, “Inscription,” 54–55, 57, 59).

. E.g., Seneca Y., Tro. 250–51; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 2.1–2; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 26.5; Spencer, “Young Man,” 36–39.

. See further discussion in Keener, Acts, 2:1388–89, 1446–53.

. Cf. also Acts 26:5; Josephus, J.W. 1.110; 2.162; Life 191.

. Mark 7:3, 8–9; Josephus, Ant. 13.297, 408; cf. b. Sukkah 28a; Zetterholm, “Kontinuitet.” Because they often saw many of their traditions already implicit in the law of Moses (m. ʾAbot 1:1; Sipre Deut. 313.2.4), some successors of Pharisaic teachers suggested that the oral traditions even equaled (Sipra Behuq. par. 2.264.1.1; pq. 8.269.2.14; Sipre Deut. 115.1.1–2; 306.25.1; 351.1.2–3) or outranked (m. Sanh. 11:3) the written law.

. Paul also denigrates mere “human tradition” among false teachers in Phrygia in Col. 2:8.

. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 36–37; Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 30–32. We lack evidence for much Diaspora Pharisaism; cf. Keener, Acts, 3:3206, 3208, 3289.

. Paul himself speaks of traditions or instructions that he has passed on (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6), and some second-century writers speak of apostolic traditions (Papias, Frag. 3.7–8, 11, 14 [Holmes, Apostolic Fathers]; 1 Clem. 7.2; Diogn. 11.6).

. Venerated heroes of the past were prepared to die even by torture for laws and customs of their ancestors (1 Macc. 2:50; 2 Macc. 6:1; 7:2, 8, 24, 30, 37; 4 Macc. 5:33; 8:7; 9:1, 24, 29; 18:5). Jews also despised apostates who departed from these practices (3 Macc. 1:3).

. Horsley and Hanson (Bandits, 190), emphasizing that many Jewish groups were zealous for God and the law.

. For zeal for the law, see also Josephus, Ant. 20.41; cf. 20.47. One could also be zealous (eager) to join the Essenes (Josephus, J.W. 2.137).

. Philip, Pneumatology, 131–32. For zeal for the law, see also, e.g., 2 Macc. 4:2; 1QS 9.23.

. In what follows I condense material from Keener, Acts, 3:3222–25; cf. 1:744–46.

. Philo, Moses 1.303; Spec. Laws 3.126.

. Philo, Spec. Laws 2.253.

. 1 Macc. 2:58; Sir. 48:2.

. Sir. 45:23; 4 Macc. 18:12; Philo, Confusion 57; Moses 1.304.

. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.54–57; see further Seland, “Saul and Zealotism.”

. Cf. Sharp, “Zeal,” highlighting 4QMMT C 4–8, 31–32.

. 1 Macc. 2:26, 54.

. 1 Macc. 2:24–27, 50; also Josephus, Ant. 12.271.

. Nikiprowetzky, “Josephus and Parties,” 233.

. Josephus, J.W. 2.56.

. Josephus, J.W. 4.161; 7.270.

. Josephus, J.W. 2.651; 4.160, 162, 193–579; 5.3, 5, 7, 101, 250, 358, 528; 6.92, 148; 7.268.

. E.g., Kim, Origin, 42; Donaldson, Gentiles, 285–86; Witherington, Acts, 302–3; Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 70–71; Hays, “Galatians,” 214.

. Fairchild, “Associations” (pointing out that the terminology came to apply to extremists zealous for upholding the law); George, Identity, 163–64.

. Cf. t. Sanh. 1:2; Sipra Behuq. pq. 1.261.1.14; Sipre Num. 42.2.3; Sipre Deut. 199.3.1.

. When Coponius was governor of Judea (Josephus, J.W. 2.117–18), i.e., 6–9 CE.

. Josephus, Ant. 18.4, 9, 23. One of his sons participated in the later Judean revolt (Josephus, J.W. 2.433).

. Josephus, J.W. 1.648–55; Ant. 17.149–63. One teacher was named Judas, but we cannot assume identity with Judas the Galilean (and certainly not with the Judas of Ant. 17.271; J.W. 2.56). The name was among the most common of the period; in Judea, see Williams, “Names,” 89–90; in the Diaspora, see CIJ 1:15, §12; 1:26, §33; 1:84, §121; 1:85, §122; 1:270–71, §345; 1:271, §346; 1:272, §347; 1:272, §348; 1:273, §349; 1:274, §350; 1:274–75, §351; 1:455, §636 (unless it means “a Jew”); 1:479, §668; 2:46, §791.

. See Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, 214–17; cf. 190–243; Baumbach, “Zeloten”; Smith, “Zealots”; Borg, “Zealot”; Borg, Conflict, 35–36; Sanders, Judaism, 281–83.

. Donaldson, Gentiles, 287; Dunn, Beginning, 341–46.

. Cf. similarly Agrippa I in Josephus, Ant. 19.294, 326–34; see Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 248–49.

. Some very early manuscripts omit “God” here, although wide geographic distribution may support it. The question, however, is merely whether God is the subject explicitly or implicitly. Cf. God as the subject of “was pleased” in 1 Cor. 1:21.

. Ehrensperger, Power, 83–85, 93.

. E.g., Bornkamm, Paul, 17; Bruce, Apostle, 75; Silva, “Galatians,” 786; Hultgren, Romans, 42; Riesner, Early Period, 236; Kim, New Perspective, 101; Gorman, Apostle, 57; Schreiner, Galatians, 101; Moo, Galatians, 103; Das, Galatians, 130. Some scholars highlight Isaiah (Cerfaux, Church, 177–78n3) or Jeremiah (Meeks, Urban Christians, 132; Ridderbos, Epistle, 63; Young and Ford, Meaning, 70; Longenecker, Romans, 51).

. They follow a literary form attested elsewhere—namely, oracles concerning other nations; cf. Hayes, “Oracles,” 84–85; Craghan, “Mari,” 48; see Isa. 13–23; Amos 1:3–2:6.

. Cf. Jer. 1:5 with Rom. 11:13; Jer. 1:8 with Acts 18:9–10; 26:17; Jer. 1:10 with 2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10; Isa. 49:8 in 2 Cor. 6:2. Whether Paul envisioned Isaiah as specifically predicting his own ministry (so Hays, Conversion, 26; cf. Sanders, Paul, 103; Wright, Faithfulness, 416) is more debatable.

. Munck, Acts, 82.

. Some are consecrated from the womb for the day of slaughter in 1QHa 7.30; cf. more positively being established for the covenant from the womb in 7.28; possible consecration from the womb in 1QHa 17.30 (reconstructed).

. Birth naturally entails leaving the womb (1Q20 6.1; Lev. Rab. 4:7; 14:2). Humans are sinful from the womb (1QHa 12.31; 4Q507 f1.2).

. Nowhere in LXX. Further, in non-Christian Greek literature more widely, from the second century or earlier, ἀφορίζω (aphorizō) never appears within ten words of μήτηρ (mētēr) or νήπιος (nēpios), and the appearances within ten words of κοιλία (koilia) (Aristotle, Mete. 350b.23) and τίκτω (tiktō) (Chald. Or. 215.5) are irrelevant (Thesaurus Linguae Graecae search by my PhD student Donald Murray Vasser). “From the womb” precludes ancient astrological interpretations based on one being formed in the womb under stars’ influence (Ptolemy, Tetrab. 3.1.106), though gentiles also sometimes claimed prophecies at a special child’s birth (Pindar, Nem. 1.60–72; Eunapius, Lives 463).

. Some also suggest a contrast with the socially respectable separatism of Pharisaism; see Doeve, “Paulus der Pharisäer”; tentatively, Dunn, Galatians, 63; Witherington, Grace, 105.

. With Barclay, Gift, 360; cf. the emphasis of Calvin, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 1:16–17.

. Wikenhauser, Mysticism, 135; Longenecker, Galatians, 32; Ngewa, Galatians, 35; Fee, Galatians, 45–46; Fee, Jesus the Lord, 82; Witherington, Grace, 106; Das, Galatians, 132–33.

. Schreiner, Galatians, 100 (emphasizing that Paul saw Christ; cf. 1 Cor. 15:8); Oakes, Galatians, 57, citing BDF §220.1. En with revelation means “to” in T. Ab. 6:8 A. But as Dunn (Galatians, 64) rightly notes, elsewhere Paul expresses revelation to someone with the dative (1 Cor. 2:10; 14:30; Phil. 3:15), without using ἐν (en).

. In Paul, the verb “revealed” (ἀποκαλύπτω, apokaluptō) with “in” (ἐν) can mean “revealed in” (Rom. 1:17; cf. Ezek. 16:36 LXX) or “revealed by means of” (1 Cor. 3:13), to the extent that there is a difference.

. Wolfgang Musculus, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 1:1 (Bray); Fee, Galatians, 30.

. Fee, Galatians, 38.

. Periphrasis (Anderson, Glossary, 102), but in common usage (e.g., Sir. 14:18; 17:31; 1 En. 15:4; T. Ab. 13:7 B; Mek. Pisha 1.120), though many thinkers used such language differently (Martin, Body, 128).

. See, e.g., 1 Cor. 15:50; Eph. 6:12; Sir. 14:18; 17:31; Matt. 16:17; Heb. 2:14; Ignatius, Smyrn. 3.2; 12.2.

. Dunn, Galatians, 67, citing Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 17.116.4.

. Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 1.15–16; contrast Jerome, Comm. Gal. 1.1.16.

. Wenham, “Paul’s Use,” 26. Whether the Galatians would have heard this tradition about Peter is uncertain; despite its single attestation in Matthew, however, it does have claim to be early (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:609–15).

. See further Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 21–38.

. I add this translation gloss here to guard against popular modern assumptions that Paul’s “Arabia” is later history’s “Arabia” (the Arabian Peninsula).

. E.g., Josephus, Life 198. Indeed, Pliny counts it “by far the most famous city of the East” (Pliny E., Nat. 5.15.70 [trans. H. Rackham, LCL]).

. A respected manner of argumentation; see, e.g., Heath, “Invention,” 97; Rowe, “Style,” 145–46.

. As far south as the Red Sea (Josephus, Ant. 1.239), it also lay south (Josephus, J.W. 3.51), north (Josephus, Ant. 12.233), and east (Josephus, Ant. 14.83; J.W. 1.161; 3.47; 5.160) of Judea. Nabatea thus extended from the Euphrates to the Red Sea (Josephus, Ant. 1.221) and might even be viewed as stretching toward India (perhaps Apuleius, Flor. 6.2). Pliny the Elder (Nat. 6.32.142–62) counts Arabians as widespread, though he counts only the Arabian Peninsula as Arabia proper (Nat. 6.32.143).

. Bruno the Carthusian on Gal. 1:17 (Levy); Lightfoot, Galatians, 88–89; Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 152–59.

. Burton, Galatians, 57–58; Betz, Galatians, 73–74; Matera, Galatians, 61; Dunn, Galatians, 69; Witherington, Grace, 102, 117; Eastman, “Galatians,” 826; Buscemi, Lettera, 118; Lyons, Galatians, 86. On the later, possibly North African, Arabic translation that locates the region in El Belka northeast of the Dead Sea, see Lightfoot, Galatians, 87 (who dismisses it).

. E.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 433 (tentatively); Matera, Galatians, 61; Campbell, “Anchor.”

. See Riesner, Early Period, 80–89; cf. Bruce, Galatians, 96. Damascus was deemed close to Arabia (Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.16, 20).

. See Satterthwaite, “Acts,” 345 (citing esp. Lucian, Hist. 56–57; cf. also Lucian, Hist. 27–28; Cicero, De or. 3.27.104–5; 53.202–3; Quintilian, Inst. 8.4; Longinus, Subl. 11–12); Laistner, Historians, 58–59; Licona, Differences, 2, 20, 51, 56, 72, 75, 77, 95, 109; cf. McIver, Memory, 48, 106.

. Sanders, Paul, 90.

. Burton, Galatians, 58.

. See, e.g., Strabo, Geogr. 16.4.2. Although the Nabateans were now the hellenized ruling class of an empire (Riesner, Early Period, 84–85), some writers may have used “Arabs” and “Ishmaelites” generically for nomadic tribal peoples (cf. Gen. 37:28; Grafton, “Arabs”).

. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.25. Justin (Epit. 36.2.14) supposes Sinai near Damascus, the Jews’ original homeland toward which Moses took them through the Arabian Desert.

. See Strabo, Geogr. 16.4.21; Pliny E., Nat. 6.32.144.

. Josephus, Ant. 4.82, 161; 14.80, 362; J.W. 1.125, 159, 267; 4.454.

. Josephus, Ant. 17.287; 18.109.

. Josephus, Ant. 18.112; J.W. 1.124.

. Josephus, Ant. 1.221; 13.10, 179.

. Jerome; Burton, Galatians, 55; Riesner, Early Period, 258–60; Fee, Galatians, 51; Sanders, Paul, 91. Some in antiquity did pursue esoteric knowledge before teaching; cf. Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 3.14; 4.19; perhaps Epictetus, Diatr. 4.8.35–36.

. Many church fathers (according to Burton, Galatians, 55); Bornkamm, Paul, 27; Betz, Galatians, 74; Bruce, Galatians, 97; Meeks, Urban Christians, 10; Murphy-O’Connor, “Paul in Arabia”; Witherington, Grace, 102; Campbell, Deliverance, 145; Schreiner, Galatians, 103; deSilva, Readings, 81.

. Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 1:17, responding to Jerome, Comm. Gal. 1.1.17 (Bray).

. Josephus, Ant. 1.220–21; Kim, New Perspective, 103.

. Burfeind, “Paulus in Arabien.”

. Though cf. also Arabians in Acts 2:11.

. Arabia is the land of Ishmael’s descendants in Josephus, Ant. 1.214; 2.32, 213.

. Bauckham, “East Rather Than West,” 174–80. But Nabatean control of northeastern and southern routes east (177) hardly meant that travelers were checked for identification.

. Condensed from Keener, Acts, 2:1676–83.

. Millar, “Ishmael.”

. For their water conservation, cf. also Lawlor, Nabataeans, 76–81; briefly, Tarn, Gray, and Spawforth, “Arabia,” 135; for Petra’s hydraulic engineering, see Bedal, “Desert Oasis”; Lindner and Hübl, “Daughter” (at nearby Sabra, Lindner, “Water Supply”); cf. Parr, “Dating” (arguing that Petra’s hydraulic engineering could be as late as mid-first century CE, rather than some decades earlier); for their advanced technology, see also Hammond, “Patterns.” (Petra apparently even had gardens; Macaulay-Lewis, “Pots.”)

. See Strabo, Geogr. 16.4.2; Negev, “Understanding Nabateans”; cf. Pliny E., Nat. 5.12.65–6.32.162. In northern Arabia, see Parr, “Arabian Peninsula,” 163; Pahlitzsch, “Arabia,” 940; Cockle, “Leuce Come.” On their trade, see Graf, “Nabateans,” 84; Lawlor, Nabataeans, 68–76; for Petra more generally, see Belt, “Petra.”

. Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.20; 16.4.18, 21.

. Pliny E., Nat. 6.32.162.

. Strabo, Geogr. 16.4.22–24.

. Strabo, Geogr. 16.4.22–23. Babrius (Fab. 57) claims that all Arabs are liars. “Arabians” also appear negatively in Josephus, Ant. 15.123–24, 130, and their military skills thus in 14.31.

. Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.20.

. Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.16.

. Riesner, Early Period, 256–57 (including East Jordan in Let. Aris. 119; Josephus, J.W. 1.89; 3.47; 5.160; Ant. 8.179; Ag. Ap. 1.133; 2.25; including even Damascus itself, Justin, Dial. 78.10; followed by Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 9; Marc. 3.13). Cf. Pliny E., Nat. 5.16.74 (where Damascus belongs to the Decapolis); North, “Damascus.”

. Parker, “Decapolis,” 129. See also Bowersock, Arabia.

. See Ciampa, “Decapolis,” 268. Some emphasize Pella (Bietenhard, “Dekapolis”).

. Tacitus, Hist. 5.6.

. Riesner, Early Period, 86; Le Cornu, Acts, 511. On ethnic enclaves within ancient cities, see, e.g., Rohrbaugh, “Pre-Industrial City,” 144 (although this idea would be familiar to many urban audiences today).

. Riesner (Early Period, 85–86), pointing out that the title “ethnarch” functioned this way for analogous Jewish officials (Josephus, Ant. 14.117; Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.13); Knauf, “Ethnarchen”; cf. Bruce, Apostle, 81; Bruce, Corinthians, 245.

. See Josephus, Ant. 14.117; 19.283. The Jerusalem high priest had been “ethnarch” of Judeans generally (Josephus, Ant. 13.214; 14.148, 151, 191, 194, 196, 200, 209, 211, 226, 306, 314, 317; 1 Macc. 14:47; 15:1–2), but as a leader of the people group, not of gentile cities where they resided; more broadly, Archelaus in Josephus, Ant. 17.317; J.W. 2.93, 115 (cf. also Ego, “Ethnarchos,” 85), though here the ethnarch is apparently connected rather than identified with Aretas.

. Cf. Matera, II Corinthians, 273.

. Josephus Ant. 18.109–16; cf. Kraeling, John the Baptist, 89.

. See Fiema, “Roman Petra.”

. Judea and its Arab neighbors also had long-standing trade ties (e.g., Let. Aris. 114).

. E.g., the Gerasa-Pella road, restored ca. 162 CE (see Atallah, “Milestone”); more generally, see Roll, “Roads.” In addition, the ancient “king’s highway” led south to the Gulf of Aqabah (Podella, “King’s Highway”).

. Pliny E., Nat. 6.32.144 (estimating six hundred miles to Gaza; he says that Petra lies in a valley surrounded by impassable mountains).

. On which, see Kolb, “Mansion,” 260. On their prosperity due to caravan trade, see Kraeling, John the Baptist, 88–89; on their trade and relations with others, see also Matthiae, “Nabatäer.”

. For foreigners in Nabatea, see, e.g., Strabo, Geogr. 16.4.21; A. Smith, “Bir Madhkur.”

. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 112. Meshel (“Rock”) argues that the Hasmoneans and Herod adapted Nabatean techniques for their own desert fortresses.

. Ciampa, “Decapolis,” 268, following Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch. For one discussion of Paul’s activity there, see Hengel, “Paul in Arabia.”

. See Riesner, Early Period, 258–60. Hengel and Schwemer (Between Damascus and Antioch, 120) argue that the various tribes worshiped their own “tribal deities” but as virtual agents of a supremely powerful deity. On Nabatean religion, see Lindner, “Heiligtum”; Jones, “Petra Inscription”; for their national deity Dushara, see Rives, Religion, 64; for traditional fertility practices, el-Khouri, “Fertility.”

. Strabo, Geogr. 16.4.26. Maximus of Tyre (Or. 2.8) claimed that Arabs worshiped “a square stone.” Could this be related to objects in the pre-Islamic qubbah (cf. Morgenstern, “Ark,” 216; Cross, “Tabernacle,” 60; Wright, Archaeology, 65; de Vaux, Israel, 296–97; Gordon, Near East, 145n12)?

. Negev, “Nabatean Inscriptions,” 81.

. E.g., Joukowsky, “Petra Great Temple”; Eddinger, “Nabatean/Roman Temple”; Atiat, “Sanctuary.” On worship of Isis as Petra’s protectress, see Schluntz, “Protectress.”

. See McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes, “Reconstruction.” On local sculpture style, see McKenzie, “Sculpture.” Hengel and Schwemer (Between Damascus and Antioch, 120) argue that traditional Nabatean deities were more Semitic than the hellenized interpretations of traditional deities in Damascus. Hengel and Schwemer (Between Damascus and Antioch, 123) argue for the existence of triads of deities in Syria and Arabia (but these belonged to larger pantheons).

. Bodel and Reid, “Dedicatory Inscription.”

. Healey, “Nabataeans.”

. Graf, “Nabateans,” 83–84.

. Drijvers, “Inscriptions,” 165. Many inscriptions from this period are by soldiers, in Greek and Latin (Negev, “Nabatean Inscriptions,” 81). Nabateans borrowed their titles for most officials from Greek and Latin (Graf, “Nabateans,” 83).

. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 189. The language of 140 sixth-century CE papyri found is Greek, but the local vernacular may have remained preclassical Arabic (Lehtinen, “Petra Papyri”). Greek culture flourished in Roman-period Decapolis, sometimes in Roman forms (see Segal and Eisenberg, “Sussita-Hippos,” noting Hippos’s Roman architecture in the early empire). For Nabatea’s relations with Rome over the centuries, see, e.g., Barrett, Oil Lamp.

. Dunn, Acts, 121.

. Adapted and condensed from Keener, Acts, 2:1627–30.

. With Riesner, Early Period, 263; Hemer, Acts in History, 182; Witherington, Acts, 316, 321; Dunn, Acts, 121.

. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 36–37.

. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 90.

. See Fitzmyer, Acts, 423.

. Barrett, Acts, 447; Witherington, Acts, 316; Finegan, Apostles, 58.

. Rapske, “Travel,” 9.

. Finegan, Apostles, 56 (arguing that it is attested in third-millennium BCE Ebla tablets, and later Egyptian and Hittite records; it was conquered by the Arameans ca. 1200); Pitard (“Damascus,” 103) suggests that its first attestation is in the fifteenth century BCE, when it was an important caravan center (Albright, Biblical Period, 8).

. Pitard, “Damascus,” 104. Technically part of the Decapolis in this period, Damascus was later incorporated into the province of Syria under Trajan (r. 98–117 CE) (Finegan, Apostles, 57).

. Josephus, J.W. 2.561; 7.368; cf. Life 27. Some gentiles thought that Jews originated in Damascus (Justin, Epit. 36.2.1).

. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 54.

. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 51, 54.

. See CD 6.5, 19; 8.21; 19.34; 20.12; 4Q266 frg. 3.2.12; 3.3.20; 4Q267 frg. 2.12; 4Q269 frg. 4.2.1; Riesner, Early Period, 238. Like, perhaps, some early Christians (Acts 8:1–4; 9:1–2), they may have been refugees from Jerusalem’s leaders.

. Rabinowitz, “Reconsideration of Damascus”; Jaubert, “Pays de Damas”; Wieder, “Damascus and Redemption.” Essenes reportedly settled in many cities (Josephus, J.W. 2.124).

. It does not fit his scheme in Acts 1:8; see Légasse, “Career,” 387.

. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 53, 83; cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.462–63, 465.

. Cf., e.g., Tyson, “Opponents,” 249; Schreiner, Galatians, 49; pace Matera, Galatians, 69.

. “Peter” (Petros) is simply the Greek version of the Aramaic name Kephas, referring to the same person (Allison, “Peter and Cephas”; Jerome on Gal. 2:11–14 [Pollmann and Elliott, “Galatians,” 52]; Williams, “Names,” 104; cf. Barnett, Finding, 263–64; pace the tradition in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.12.2; Ehrman, “Cephas”).

. Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 1.18; Bruce, Galatians, 98; Hansen, Galatians, 48n.

. Kilpatrick, “Galatians 1:18”; Roloff, Apostolat, 67–68, 89.

. Betz, Galatians, 76n196.

. E.g., Neil, Galatians, 30; Bruce, Galatians, 98; Fung, Galatians, 74; Dunn, Galatians, 110–13; Matera, Galatians, 66–69; Witherington, Grace, 119.

. Nor should one think conversely that Paul was avoiding Peter by waiting so long to visit Jerusalem; Paul could hardly expect his conversion to generate a hospitable welcome among former compatriots in Jerusalem (Longenecker, Galatians, 41).

. Jerome (Comm. Gal. 1.1.18) shockingly allegorizes the fifteen days in terms of the fifteen ascent psalms (Edwards). Le Cornu (Galatians, 66–67) suggests that this may be the visit mentioned in Acts 22:17 and may have required a week for purification before entering the temple (citing m. Ohal. 18:6; m. Naz. 7:3).

. Schnabel (Paul the Missionary, 286) infers from Acts 26:20 that Paul also preached in Judea outside Jerusalem.

. Hengel and Schwemer (Between Damascus and Antioch, 150) compare Goethe’s eight days at Tübingen as guest of his publisher.

. As de Boer (Galatians, 98) suggests.

. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 146.

. Dunn, Galatians, 74. For disciples sometimes being gone from home more than two weeks, see m. Ketub. 5:6; 13:10; y. Ketub. 5:7, §2; Safrai, “Home,” 763; Wegner, Chattel, 78.

. Bruno the Carthusian on Gal. 1:18 (Levy). Note earlier Marius Victorinus, Ep. Gal. 1.1.18: “‘How,’ [he implies], ‘could I learn this great knowledge of God from Peter in such a short time?’” (Edwards).

. Koester, Introduction, 2:102; Betz, Galatians, 76n190; Matera, Galatians, 66; Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 107; Schreiner, Galatians, 109; de Boer, Galatians, 7; Moo, Galatians, 108; Das, Galatians, 137; Sanders, Paul, 92.

. For approaches that give some account of Acts, see, e.g., Jewett, Chronology; Riesner, “Pauline Chronology”; Das, Galatians, 31–47; Keener, Acts, 2:1447–49, 1602–3, 1678; 3:2207–8, 2297–99, 2539, 2705–8, 2761–63, 2960–62, 3331; 4:3444–48, 3597, 3746, 3770–71; discounting information from Acts, Knox, Chapters (critiqued in Das, Galatians, 31–36), and Lüdemann, Paul.

. Wolfgang Musculus, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 1:17, tentatively (Bray); Witherington, Grace, 118–19; Witherington, Acts, 88–90; Das, Galatians, 137–38.

. Dunn (Galatians, 75) considers why: perhaps other apostles were doing mission elsewhere in Judea, or were afraid of Paul (Acts 9:26), or Paul needed secrecy (9:30; but contrast 9:28).

. Witherington, Grace, 121.

. Dunn (Galatians, 77) suggests that the grammatical ambiguity could be deliberate in view of 2:12.

. Lightfoot, Galatians, 85; Burton, Galatians, 60; Moo, Galatians, 110 (“the more natural reading of the syntax”). Cf., particularly broadly, Jerome, Comm. Gal. 1.1.19: “All who had seen the Lord and subsequently preached him were called apostles” (Edwards).

. There James and apostles are paralleled with Kephas and the Twelve (15:7 with 15:5) (Das, Galatians, 142).

. Epiphanius, Pan. 78; Ambrosiaster, Comm. Gal. 1.19; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.1.2.

. E.g., Jerome, Adversus Helvidium; Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ep. Gal. 1.19 (Edwards); Haimo of Auxerre (ninth century) on Gal. 1:19 (Levy); Luther, First Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 1:19 (Bray). These traditions may reflect negative views of female sexuality in Late Antiquity; see Bedford, Galatians, 36–37.

. Lightfoot, Galatians, 252–91; Bruce, Galatians, 99 (citing also Brown et al., Mary, 65–72, 270–78); Meier, “Brothers and Sisters”; Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:318–32; Thiselton, Corinthians, 681–82; see also Tertullian Marc. 4.19; Carn. Chr. 7; on Tertullian, also Vicastillo, “Hermanos.” Alternatives first appear in Prot. Jas. 9.2 (cf. 19.1–3; Epiphanius, Pan. 78), and, still differently, Jerome, Adversus Helvidium.

. See, e.g., Schnabel, Mission, 395–98.

. For that ethnarch, see, e.g., Josephus, Ant. 14.117; 19.283. Later Christians envisioned James as Jerusalem’s “bishop” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.1.3; 2.23.1; 3.11; Dunn [Galatians, 76] cites Ps.-Clem., Ep. Pet. i.1; Recogn. i.43; see also Bruno the Carthusian on Gal. 1:19 [Levy]).

. E.g., Josephus, Ant. 9.45, 160, 233, 257; 18.95; J.W. 1.664; 2.31, 248; a Middle Eastern brother in Josephus, Ant. 20.93; even for a sophist in Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.19.599. Foakes-Jackson (Acts, 7) speaks of the honor accorded “the kindred of the founder” in Middle Eastern religion. Tradition claims that another relative of Jesus succeeded James (Malina and Pilch, Acts, 108, rightly note Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.32).

. Josephus (Ant. 4.26–28, 34, 58) defends Moses against the charge of nepotism for appointing his brother as high priest. For antinepotism, see, e.g., Justin, Epit. 12.15.9. Appointing brothers was common (Xenophon, Hell. 3.4.29; Otho’s brother in Tacitus, Hist. 1.75, 77, 90; 2.23, 33; Plutarch, Otho 7.4; 8.1; 13.3), since family honor bound them to one another as trustworthy allies (Xenophon, Cyr. 8.7.14).

. With Matera, Galatians, 110.

. De Boer, Galatians, 100. For one more detailed comparison of Luke and Paul here, see Lightfoot, Galatians, 91–92.

. Pace Sanders, Paul, 21, 107, based on Gal. 1:22.

. For Jerusalem as the theological center, see, e.g., Feldman, “Importance”; as the literal center, see Jub. 8:12, 19; Sib. Or. 5.249–50; b. Sanh. 37a; b. Yoma 54b; cf. Scott, “Horizon,” 526; Alexander, “Imago Mundi”; Paczkowski, “Ombelico.” Jews may have framed this against the Delphic claim (Alexander, “Omphalos”) that Delphi was the world’s center (e.g., Euripides, Med. 667–68; Orest. 591; Pindar, Pyth. 4.74; 8.59–60; 11.10; Hymns 6.17; 21, frg. 54; Schachter, “Omphalos”).

. I borrow this chart from Keener, Acts, 2:1668; cf. 1687.

. Ἰδού (idou) appears in the LXX more than one thousand times; the singular ἴδε (ide), the second-person singular aorist imperative of ὁράω (horaō), is also common. They do not appear in the sophisticated Greek of Josephus. Idou is fairly common in Philo but primarily in LXX quotations; ide is rarer, but Philo does use it for illustrations. For idou, see also, e.g., T. Ab. 12:16; 15:6; 16:8 A; 10:8 B; 2 Bar. 10:18; 14:1. Paul accounts for less than 5 percent of NT usage (in contrast to Luke-Acts at 39 percent [28 percent being in the Gospel, with only four occurrences—i.e., 2 percent—after the middle of Acts], Matthew at 30 percent, and Revelation at 13 percent; thus more Semitic texts tend to dominate). Of 31 instances in the Apostolic Fathers, 8 (over one-quarter) are in 1 Clement and 13 (almost 42 percent) in Barnabas, with 9 more (29 percent) in Shepherd of Hermas with its fairly clumsy imitations of apocalyptic language.

. See, e.g., Epictetus, Diatr. 1.24.9, 12–13; 3.22.88; 4.8.31.

. Perhaps almost as if in court; see Rhet. Alex. 17, 1432a.33–40; 1432b.1–10; Sampley, “Not Lie.” Bligh (Galatians, 44) treats this oath as the center of the letter’s first half, albeit by means of a questionable chiastic structure. North (“Protest”) points out the prejudice against Cilicians’ integrity; but would Paul’s audiences even in Galatia think of him primarily as a Cilician?

. E.g., Homer, Il. 3.276–80; Hesiod, Theog. 231; Euripides, Med. 752–55; Aeschines, Tim. 114–15; Demosthenes, Timocr. 151; Polybius, Hist. 3.25.7–9; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 6.89.4; 7.43.1; Livy, Hist. 10.38.10; 21.10.9; Plutarch, Lys. 8.4; Babrius, Fab. 50.17; Pausanias, Descr. 2.2.1; Fronto, M. Caes. 3.3; Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11; Sipra Qed. par. 2.199.1.6; Hahn, “Prayers,” 242.

. Matt. 5:33–37 (cf. 23:16–22); James 5:12. For an early attempt to reconcile the passages, see Augustine, Ep. Gal. 9 (1B.1.20–24; Edwards). Cf. Essenes’ purported rejection of oaths (Josephus, J.W. 2.135; Ant. 15.370–71; cf. Philo, Good Person 84) except for their initiatory one (Josephus, J.W. 2.139–42).

. So, e.g., Luther, First Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 1:20; Wolfgang Musculus, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 1:20; Rudolf Gwalther, Serm. Gal., on Gal. 1:20.

. Cf. Johnson, Acts, 174. One might interject a denial of falsehood where hearers would seem most skeptical or one simply wished to underline the point (cf. Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 11:31; 1 Tim. 2:7; Apuleius, Apol. 75).

. Chrysostom (Catena on Acts 15.2–4) seems at pains to reconcile Acts with Gal. 1:17–18.

. Hemer, Acts in History, 182–83; Bruce, Galatians, 103; cf. Luther, First Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 1:21, citing Acts 9:29–30 (Edwards). Dunn (Galatians, 80) rightly notes that the language here does not allow for an alleged Pauline mission in Achaia in this period (pace the hypothetical sort of chronology in, e.g., Donfried, Thessalonica, 73, following Lüdemann, Paul, 157–63).

. Ramsay, Galatians, 275–78; Cadbury, “Law and Trial,” 310; Hemer, Acts in History, 172. For Iulius Polemo’s control of Cilicia in 41, see Dmitriev, “Grant.”

. As in some manuscripts of Acts 15:41 and Gal. 1:21; see Green, “Syria and Cilicia.”

. Before and after being one province, they simply bordered each other (Cicero, Fam. 15.4.4; Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.1; Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom. 47.30.1; 48.41.2), as separate provinces (Cicero, Sest. 25.55). Even during this period, see Pliny E., Nat. 5.18.80; 5.22.91; 5.35.129.

. Regions designates parts rather than the whole of Syria and Cilicia, for which a broader term would be needed (Ramsay, Galatians, 278–79). Paul provides a separate definite article for each.

. On its significant Jewish population, see Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.39; J.W. 7.43–44; Kraeling, “Jewish Community at Antioch,” 131–36; Meeks and Wilken, Antioch, 8–9; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 134. On Judaism in Roman Syria, see Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 249–58.

. See Kennedy, “Demography.”

. Josephus, J.W. 3.29; Herodian, Hist. 4.3.7. Some deemed it the fourth city (Libanius, Or. 20; Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.5). On Antioch, see further Meeks and Wilken, Antioch; Keener, Acts, 2:1834–40, 1982–90.

. See, e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 31.163.

. On Tarsus, see Keener, Acts, 2:1646–51; on Paul being genuinely from there, 1646–47. For other Jewish communities in Cilicia, see Schnabel, Paul the Missionary, 69.

. See further discussion in Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 156–57; Wilson, “Cilicia.”

. Against those who limit Paul’s former activity to Damascus, such as Koester (Introduction, 2:91), see also Kim, Origin, 33; Légasse, “Career,” 385–86; Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 36–38, 90.

. Cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 38; de Boer, Galatians, 101.

. Cf. here Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 37; Dunn, Galatians, 81.

. And possibly longer in some outlying areas; Schnabel, Paul the Missionary, 286.

. Wilkinson, “Population”; Broshi, “Estimating,” 13–14; Fiensy, “Composition,” 214.

. Cf. Avi-Yonah, “Geography,” 109–10; Goodman, State, 32; pace the very high figures in Josephus, Life 235; J.W. 2.280; 6.420–25; Byatt, “Population Numbers.”

. A point that Hengel (Pre-Christian Paul, 23–24) makes concerning even the faculty at his university.

. With Das, Galatians, 144. On the movement’s growth, see Keener, “Plausibility.”

. Perhaps as a report from Jerusalem to surrounding churches in Judea (Witherington, Grace, 125, following esp. Bammel, “Galater 1,23”).

. Paul might call his gospel “the faith” because faith is so central to it (Matera, Galatians, 70), esp. in this letter.

. Dunn (Galatians, 83), noting “our former persecutor” (ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς, ho diōkōn hēmas) as an epithet. Epithets certainly were common (Rhet. Her. 4.31.42; Rowe, “Style,” 128; Anderson, Glossary, 23, 52–53), and one is possible here (cf. ὁ πορθήσας [ho porthēsas], Luke’s only use of that verb, in Acts 9:21), but Paul himself could construct substantival participial titles (e.g., Rom. 8:33–34; 13:4; 14:1, 3; Gal. 4:27; 5:10; 6:6, 8), even with this verb (Rom. 12:14; cf. Matt. 5:44).

. With Das, Galatians, 145.

. Perhaps more successfully than in Nabatea (Gal. 1:17), where Paul does not even specify his activity (Bruce, Galatians, 103), though this is an argument from silence as well as from contrast.

. Bunine, “Apôtre des Gentils.”

. De Boer, Galatians, 103; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 48; note qualifications in Moo, Galatians, 115.

. See Plutarch, Agis 14.3; Cleom. 13.3; 18.2; 26.5, in De Pourcq and Roskam, “Virtues,” 168; Lucian, Dem. 63–67, in Beck, “Demonax,” 92.

. Thus, e.g., Cicero (Quinct. 25.78–80) shows that his client was far from the scene and could not have made a seven-hundred-mile trip in two to three days.

. See Rhet. Alex. 30, 1438a.6–19.

. See here Sanders, Paul, 462–65.

. See, e.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 292–74, esp. 346–74 (a response that should have laid to rest the extremes of the old Tübingen hypothesis); cf. Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter, 29–30; Johnson, Romans, 227.

. With, e.g., Schreiner, Galatians, 119.

. E.g., Neil, Galatians, 32 (cf. 29); Klein, “Verständnis”; Martyn, Galatians, 182, 189.

. E.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 102; Jewett, Chronology, 53–54; Dunn, Galatians, 87 (tentatively).

. Cf. Koester, Introduction, 2:102.

. Ridderbos, Epistle, 77.

. Longenecker, Galatians, 46.

. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:411, 431. Some suggest that Luke omits Titus because of his association with Paul’s collection, which Luke also omits (Keener, Acts, 1:247–49; 4:3408–12: see Barrett, “Titus,” 2; Dunn, Galatians, 90), but that suggestion seems inadequate to explain such a significant omission when so many other coworkers are named.

. Cf. Fellows, “Titus”; contrast Keener, Acts, 3:2321.

. Stambaugh, City, 94.

. Solin, “Names, Roman,” 1026.

. Judge, First Christians, 561.

. Rhet. Her. 4.2.4–4.3.4.

. Cf. Rajak, “Location,” 11–13; Reicke, Era, 38–39; Schnabel, Paul the Missionary, 325; Stanley, “Hybrid,” 125. Note Paul’s own common usage. Here see Dunn, Galatians, 95; Das, Galatians, 169, citing 2 Macc. 4:36; 11:2; 4 Macc. 18:20.

. Here see, e.g., Meeks, Urban Christians, 112; Aune, Prophecy, 249; Hays, “Galatians,” 223; Fee, Galatians, 58. Supporters of the famine-visit view typically identify the revelation of Gal. 2:2 with Acts 11:28, but this was far from the only prophetic ministry even in Antioch (Acts 11:27; 13:1–2). John Knox originally identified this revelation with 2 Cor. 12:2 but later retracted this identification (Knox, “Reflections,” 110). De Boer (Galatians, 108–9) suggests that Paul went to Jerusalem to impart a revelation to the pillars; if so, however, I believe that it would be the revelation concerning the gentiles that Paul received in 1:15–16.

. Detractors to this view object that Paul omits the definite article, but in my opinion context should outweigh a far from uniform pattern in grammar.

. Not, however, in the later Mart. Pol. 22.3; 23.2.

. BDAG (though not all the examples are clear); Neil, Galatians, 34; Fee, Galatians, 59; Moo, Galatians, 124; Malik, “Notes,” 175–76. Contexts could make it negative, of course, such as when Plato’s Socrates critiques some who “seem to be wise” (Hays, “Galatians,” 223).

. Cf. Fee (Galatians, 59), who thinks it “very likely.”

. Cf. Barclay (Obeying, 59), who thinks that Paul’s “opponents, whether or not they themselves came from Jerusalem, had impressed on the Galatians the fact that the pillars of the church” were “circumcised Jews.”

. One could in fact be far greater than one “seemed”; see, e.g., Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.1–2, 370.21–26; also, friends sometimes competed for honor in friendly ways (e.g., Philostratus, Her. 13.3–4; 27.4), and one could criticize leading figures respectfully (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 4). Against taking the agonistic tone of Paul’s narrations too seriously, see Dewey, “Oral-Aural Event,” 151n13. One might characterize Paul’s relations with the Jerusalem apostles as cordial alongside tension; see Hemer, Acts in History, 185; Brehm, “Relationship”; Dillmann, “Begegnungen.” For the partnership of Peter and Paul, see also Farmer and Kereszty, Peter and Paul, 12–51, esp. 51.

. Compare perhaps Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 2:6: one should respect rank, including that of the pope, but not when it conflicts with obedience to God.

. Hermogenes, Method 18.434.

. Many commentators suggest both a private and then a public meeting in Gal. 2:2 (Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 66; Fee, Galatians, 60). While Paul might allude to separate meetings, however, they are nowhere grammatically explicit (see Witherington, Grace, 133; Moo, Galatians, 123).

. Luke apparently conflates by condensing into one what were originally at least two audiences; see Acts 15:12, 22.

. For rhetorical reasons, a writer or speaker could express anxiety as to whether their work would be well received, but this normally addressed the evaluator directly (e.g., Quintilian, Inst. 4.pref.1), not a different audience (e.g., Rom. 15:31).

. Cf. Hay, “Indifference,” 43, particularly starkly; de Boer, Galatians, 110. Tolmie (“Bang waarvoor”) finds in Paul’s ambiguity here a rhetorical lapse.

. With Dunn, Galatians, 93; Schreiner, Galatians, 122. Fitting his concern with apostolicity, Augustine suggested that Paul needed wider apostolic verification even though his message was true; see Pollmann and Elliott, “Galatians,” 57.

. See Pfitzner, Agon Motif, 99; cf. Heb. 12:1. Polycarp (Phil. 9.2) concludes that Paul did not run in vain.

. Cf. the local hippodrome (Josephus, Ant. 17.175, 178, 193, 255; J.W. 1.659; 2.44); for others in Judea-Galilee, see Josephus, J.W. 2.599; Life 132, 138; Patrich, “Carceres”; Hoppe, “Hippodromes.”

. E.g., Aeschines, Ctes. 179; Isocrates, Ad Nic. 11; Rhet. Her. 4.3.4; Cicero, Att. 13.21; Seneca Y., Lucil. 80.3; Ben. 5.3.1; Dial. 1.2.3; 4.15.2; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.2.25–26; 1.4.13; 1.18.21–23; 2.5.15–17; 2.17.29; 2.18.27–29; 3.20.9–10; 3.22.52; 4.4.30; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 9.11–12; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.2.27; Plutarch, Luc. 38.4; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 1.4–6; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 6.20; Chariton, Chaer. 1.2.2; Philo, Worse 32; Good Person 88; 4 Macc. 17:12, 15; Sib. Or. 3.738–39; see further Pfitzner, Agon Motif, 23–72 (esp. 28–35); Garrison, “Metaphor”; Schwankl, “Lauft”; Cagniart, “Attitude.”

. Diogenes in Dio Chrysostom, Or. 9.10–12 and Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.2.34; Cicero, Brut. 67.236; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.7, 406.14–24; Porphyry, Marc. 32.500.

. Fee, Galatians, 60; less relevantly, cf. LXX Job 2:9; 20:18; 39:16 MSS; Jer. 28:58 (ET 51:58); possibly Wis. 3:11. The LXX wording unfortunately weakens the suggestion, offered by Derrett (“Running”), of Hab. 2:2 (part of the context of Hab. 2:4) as the source, but see also Oropeza, “Running.”

. Xenophon, Oec. 7.40; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 33.56; M. Caesar in Fronto, M. Caes. 2.3.3; Lucian, Hermot. 76; Libanius, Speech 15.6. In Jewish sources, T. Job 24:2–3.

. See Sib. Or. 1.199; Reinmuth, “Nicht vergeblich,” on L.A.B. 9:4; 12:6, 9; 18:11; 23:13.

. A minority of scholars argue that Titus chose to be circumcised voluntarily (or that some words are missing and Titus was circumcised [Lake, “Council,” 197]), but Gal. 2:5 and Paul’s emphasis on apostolic support in this passage undermine the cogency of this reading.

. Josephus, Life 113. For comparisons and contrasts between this episode and Paul, see Harrison, “Refuse to Circumcise.”

. Josephus, Ant. 13.257–58, 318–19. Also relevant might be 1 Macc. 2:46 (Dunn, Galatians, 97), if it includes gentiles and not just Jewish boys who had not been circumcised.

. Much of this excursus is condensed from Keener, Mind, 39–41; see more fully, Keener, John, 1:750–51.

. Philo, Good Person 36, 95–96; Dreams 2.196; Josephus, Ant. 14.77; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 16, p. 106.8 (Lutz).

. Musonius Rufus, Lect. 9, p. 72.23, 27–29; 72.31–73.3; 74.10–13; Philo, Good Person 48, 52. Probably compulsion and παρρησία (parrhēsia, freedom of speech) are contrasted in Josephus, Ant. 16.27; parrhēsia is related to freedom (Philo, Good Person 95, 125; Josephus, Ant. 11.39; 14.77; cf. 4.187).

. See Söding, “Freiheit.”

. E.g., Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 10.34.8; Strabo, Geogr. 10.4.16.

. Arrian, Anab. 4.11.8; Sallust, Catil. 51.31; Jug. 31.11; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 9, p. 72.9–10.

. Demosthenes, 3 Philip. 36; [4] Philip. 25; Isocrates, De pace 105; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 3.23.18–20; 6.7.2; Sallust, Jug. 102.6; Cicero, Att. 14.14; Phil. 3.5.12; 3.11.29; 3.13.33; 6.7.19; 14.14.37; Appian, Hist. rom. 4.10.80; 8.9.56; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 23.4.

. E.g., Aristotle, Rhet. 1.9.27, 1367a; Plutarch Anonymous 37, S.Sp. (Mor. 234B); Dio Chrysostom, Or. 18; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.4.19.

. Pseudo-Crates, Ep. 8; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.7.17.

. E.g., Seneca Y., Ben. 3.20.1–2; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.9.21; 1.12.9; 1.19.8; 1.25.3; 2.18.28; 4.1.1; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 14.18.

. E.g., Seneca Y., Ben. 3.20.1–2; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.11.37; 1.19.8; 3.24.68; 4.7.16–18; Aulus Gellius, Att. 2.18.9–10; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.1.121–22.

. Cicero, Parad. 33–41; Seneca Y., Lucil. 27.4; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.72 (Aristippus); Plutarch, Lect. 1 (Mor. 37E); 4 Macc. 14:2.

. Marcus Aurelius 8.1; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.1.33 (Zeno).

. E.g., Plutarch Superst. 5 (Mor. 167B).

. E.g., Arrian, Anab. 3.11.2; Seneca Y., Lucil. 8.7; 27.4; Plutarch Lect. 1 (Mor. 37E); Superst. 5 (Mor. 167B).

. E.g., Aeschines, Tim. 42; Xenophon, Oec. 1.22–23; Hell. 4.8.22; Apol. 16; Sophocles, Antig. 756; Trach. 488–89; Plato, Phaedr. 238E; Isocrates, Demon. 21; Cicero, Amic. 22.82; Off. 1.29.102; 1.38.136; 2.5.18; Tibullus, Eleg. 2.4.1–3; Appian, Bell. civ. 5.1.8–9; Seneca Y., Ben. 3.28.4; Lucil. 14.1; 39.6; 47.17; 110.9–10; 116.1; Nat. 1.16.1; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 3, p. 40.19; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.24.70–71, 75; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 36.6; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.75; 6.2.66; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 12; Heraclitus, Ep. 9; Socratics, Ep. 14; Pyth. Sent. 21, 23.

. E.g., 3 Macc. 2:6; Josephus, Ant. 3.19–20; 6.86; T. Mos. 3:14; Sipre Deut. 305.2.1.

. Josephus, Ant. 18.6.

. Philo, Good Person 20.

. E.g., m. ʾAbot 6:2; b. B. Meṣ. 85b; b. Qidd. 22b (attributed to ben Zakkai); see further Abrahams, Studies (2), 213; cf. Ps. 119:45.

. Cf. Dunn, Galatians, 100. George (Identity, 208) notes freedom as a postcolonial emphasis as well.

. 1 Esd. 4:49, 53; 1 Macc. 14:26; ἐλευθερόω (eleutheroō) in 2 Macc. 2:22.

. Lev. 19:20; Sir. 7:21; 33:26; 3 Macc. 3:28.

. For the Maccabean era, e.g., Josephus, Ant. 12.304, 433.

. E.g., Josephus, Ant. 2.281, 290, 327, 329; 3.64.

. Josephus, Ant. 12.281.

. Josephus, Ant. 12.281; 13.198.

. E.g., Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.17; Heir 271.

. Philo, Heir 68. Reason is freest of the free in 4 Macc. 14:2.

. Macarius Magnes, Apocrit. 3.30–36; Bornkamm, “Missionary Stance,” 203–4; Haenchen, “Acts as Source Material,” 271; Pervo, Acts, 388.

. E.g., Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 5.11 (Edwards); Rudolf Gwalther, Serm. Gal., on Gal. 2:3 (Bray).

. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 84–85; Betz, Galatians, 89; Witherington, Acts, 474–76; Dunn, Acts, 216; Gaventa, Acts, 46; Wright, Ethics, 188–89; Talbert, Acts, 137; Le Cornu, Galatians, 90.

. On anacoluthon, aposiopesis, and related figures, see, e.g., Rhet. Her. 4.30.41; BDF §482; Rowe, “Style,” 135, 149; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 580, 583; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 87. Sometimes orators also condensed their thought to rush ahead (Anderson, Glossary, 30; Rhet. Alex. 22, 1434b.11–18), but Paul’s ellipses here are probably less deliberate. More technically, context allows one to fill in the missing components in genuine ellipsis (see Plath, “Ellipsis.”)

. Dunn (Galatians, 97) and Moo (Galatians, 127) cite BDF §467. Anacoluthon was considered incorrect in literary prose, despite its presence even in Isocrates, but it was acceptable in conversation and sometimes in letters (BDF §458).

. As noted by Sanders, Paul, 169.

. See, e.g., Orchard, “Ellipsis”; Blommerde, “Ellipsis.”

. De Boer, Galatians, 112. Cf. Martyn (Galatians, 195): “Each anacoluthon occurs” when Paul considers traditionalists who generate “an increase in his pulse rate.” Dunn (Galatians, 97) refers to G. Ebeling’s quotation of Luther regarding Paul’s anger here.

. DeSilva, Readings, 99.

. Cf., e.g., Virgil, Aen. 1.135; Fronto, M. Caes. 4.2.3. On ellipsis signifying emotion, Anderson (Glossary, 41) cites Alex. Fig. 2.13. On anger causing one to forget what to say, see ʾAbot R. Nat. 1A.

. Fronto in Naber p. 211 (trans. C. R. Haines, LCL, 1:40).

. For simulating, see Isocrates, Ad Nic. 23; Fronto, M. Caes. 3.6; for the orator feeling the emotion, Cicero, De or. 2.46.189–91; cf. Pliny Y., Ep. 6.33.10.

. Dunn, Galatians, 97. For this rhetorical move of insinuatio and related tactics, see Demosthenes, Crown 268; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lysias 24; Cicero, Verr. 2.5.66.170; Agr. 24.63–64; Cat. 1.6.14; Pis. 2.3; Pseudo-Cicero, Invect. Sall. 5.13; 8.22; Hermogenes, Method 7.419–20; further examples in Keener, Acts, 4:3415–16; cf. Bower, “Ephodos and insinuatio.”

. Pliny Y., Ep. 8.22.4; cf. Cicero, Att. 7.18, 23; 13.2; 14.12.

. Falsely pretending friendship was deemed reprehensible (Lysias, Or. 8.5–6, §112). Paul’s Greek compound translated as false siblings may coin a term (Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 229), a practice generally discouraged in more sophisticated rhetoric (Rowe, “Style,” 123), unless done artfully to hold attention. Some suggest that the definite article “suggests that the Galatians knew of them” (Bruce, Galatians, 112).

. Although a related verb (παρεισάγω, pareisagō) has a range of meaning, some early Christians used it negatively, as in 2 Pet. 2:1 (with, similarly, false prophets); BDAG cites Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.22.5; Hippolytus, Ref. 5.17.10; 7.29.8. Lightfoot (Galatians, 106) compares Jude 4. Cf. a different term for the image of sneaking in surreptitiously in Barn. 2.10; 4.9.

. The verb “brought in” suggests that they were aided (Dunn, Galatians, 98; Witherington, Grace, 136), even though by itself “slipped in” (NRSV) could allow that they snuck themselves without help (Fee, Galatians, 62; see BDAG). For the negative connotations of the term translated in 2:4 as snuck in (παρεισέρχομαι, pareiserchomai), see BDAG (citing, e.g., Polybius, Hist. 1.7.3; 1.8.4; 2.55.3). Cf. the Trojan Horse in Little Iliad, bk. 5.

. E.g., Homer, Il. 10.326–27, 465–514; Xenophon, Eq. 4.16; Cyr. 6.1.39–43; 6.2.2, 11; Menander, Asp. 41–42; Pseudo-Callisthenes, Alex. 1.42; Libanius, Encom. 1.14; 2.9; Invect. 4.9. See further Richmond, “Spies.”

. E.g., Caesar, Span. W. 13; Tacitus, Hist. 2.34; Herodian, Hist. 6.5.2; 8.1.1. See further Southern, Roman Army, 226–27; Onken and Umbach, “Espionage”; scouts in Campbell, “Exploratores”; cf. interpreters suspected of espionage in Peretz, “Interpreter.”

. E.g., Judg. 1:24; 18:2, 14; 1 Sam. 26:4; 2 Sam. 10:3; 1 Chron. 19:3; 1 Macc. 5:38; 12:26; 4Q365 32 3–4; Jub. 42:5; T. Sim. 4:3; Josephus, Ant. 7.118; 13.175; 15.285, 289, 295, 366; 16.236; 18.321, 323; J.W. 1.318, 492; 2.491; Sipre Deut. 344.3.2.

. See LXX Gen. 42:9–16; 1 Sam. 26:4; 2 Sam. 10:3; 15:10; 1 Chron. 19:3; 1 Macc. 12:26; Sir. 11:30; also Philo, Joseph 166; Josephus, Ant. 2.98, 111; 6.311; 7.118; 14.175.

. See Philo, Moses 1.236, 325; Josephus, Ant. 3.302–8, 312; 5.5, 9, 30, 126; 1 Clem. 12.2, 4; Barn. 12.9.

. See Seneca Y., Lucil. 2.5, in Klauck, Context, 356.

. Others also recognize the military imagery here, e.g., Witherington, Grace, 136; Schreiner, Galatians, 125; Lyons, Galatians, 112; Das, Galatians, 173. More cautiously, Betz (Galatians, 90n305) notes military imagery as the original and frequent sense.

. E.g., Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 2.10.3; Catullus, Carm. 67.21; Lucian, Lucius 10; Apuleius, Metam. 2.17.

. E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Demosth. 32; Cicero, De or. 3.14.55; Seneca E., Controv. 9, pref. 4; Pliny Y., Ep. 1.20.3; 4.22.5; 7.25.6; Tacitus, Dial. 32, 34, 37; Fronto, Eloq. 1.16; Lucian, Nigr. 36; Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.1.563.

. E.g., Cicero, Fam. 4.7.2; Brut. 2.7; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 49.10.

. E.g., Philodemus, Prop. col. 4.6–15; Seneca Y., Lucil. 96.5; 109.8; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.14.15; 4.5.25–32; Hierocles, Siblings (Stobaeus, Anth. 4.84.20); examples in Valerius Maximus, Mem. 4.1.ext. 2; 8.7.ext. 5.

. Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.24; cf. Oec. 1.23.

. See, e.g., Lucian, Phil. Sale 8; Antisthenes in Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.1.13; Malherbe, “Antisthenes”; Malherbe, Philosophers, 91–119, esp. here 97–101.

. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.11–16, 20; 9.11–12; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 5, 10, 12, 19.

. See, e.g., Wis. 18:21–22; T. Levi 2:3; esp. Philo, e.g., in Alleg. Interp. 3.14, 155; Dreams 2.90; Abraham 243; Moses 1.225.

. Witherington, Grace, 137.

. With Das, Galatians, 173. Cf. similar language in, e.g., Dan. 10:20; 1 En. 61:10; 3 Bar. 12:3.

. For Satan as a deceiver in early Jewish sources, see, e.g., CD 4.15–16; T. Benj. 6:1; T. Dan 3:6; T. Job 3:3/4; 3:6/5; 26:6/7; 27:1.

. Paul elsewhere uses the underlying Greek idiom (πρὸς ὥραν, pros hōran) to speak of a short time (2 Cor. 7:8; Philem. 15). Holding firm without vacillation was considered praiseworthy (Plutarch, Demosth. 13.1–2). Jewish circles associated truth with the law; cf. Ps. 119:142, 151, 160; 2 Bar. 44:14; T. Ash. 6:1, 3; Knight, “Aletheia”; Keener, John, 1:417–18.

. Paul was ready to sacrifice for others’ sake, as in Eph. 3:1, 13; Col. 1:24; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 1.23. For the principle of a champion representing the interests of many in military contexts, see, e.g., 1 Sam. 17:8–9; Homer, Il. 7.66–91; Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. 2.20–21; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 3.12.3–4; Livy, Hist. 7.9.8–7.10.14; Virgil, Aen. 10.439–509; Aulus Gellius, Att. 9.13.10; Pseudo-Callisthenes, Alex. 3.4; Gordon, Civilizations, 262.

. Martyn, Galatians, 218.

. Being shamed by Paul’s victory, they presumably worked all the harder to counterattack (see Esler, “Agreement,” although his reconstruction of subsequent details outstrips the evidence).

. Cf. here Sanders, Paul, 102.

. Cf. discussion in Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics.

. With, e.g., Dunn, Galatians, 102; Das, Galatians, 179–80; Barclay, Gift, 365n36.

. Though Dunn (Galatians, 102; Beginning, 453), emphasizing the present tense, suggests that Paul may have been more impressed with them in the past.

. See, e.g., Xenophon, Cyr. 5.5.34; Llewelyn, Documents 6, 132–40, §17; MacMullen, Social Relations, 138–41; among Jewish people, Sir. 13:2; t. B. Qam. 9:12; Applebaum, “Social Status,” 707.

. Class is distinct from status, which was less fixed and depended on a range of factors, but I can comment only briefly here; cf. the brief bibliography in Keener, Corinthians, 12–13.

. See, e.g., Polybius, Hist. 26.1.1–3, 12; Livy, Hist. 41.20.1–3; Suetonius, Dom. 8.3; Pliny Y., Ep. 9.5.2–3; Phaedrus, Fab. 1.3; Babrius, Fab. 101; Apuleius, Metam. 3.11.

. E.g., Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 115–16; Meeks, World, 36–37.

. E.g., Artemidorus, Onir. 4.26.

. Aristotle, Pol. 5.1.6, 1301b; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 6.83.2–6.86.5; Appian, Bell civ. 1, intro., 1; Plutarch, Cor. 6.2–4; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 4.4.2; Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 4.17.10–13; Welborn, Politics, 17–28.

. Lewis, Life, 18–35.

. Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 41–56.

. See, e.g., Seneca Y., Lucil. 47.16; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 9.8–9; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 76–77.

. See Toner, Culture, 93–94.

. Betz, Galatians, 94, and the references, including to Philo, in 94n351. On this topos in Paul, see Jaquette, Discerning.

. Lucian, Phil. Sale 21.

. Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.7, p. 42.13–27.

. Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.7b, p. 44.14–33; 2.7.7g, p. 50.18–20.

. See Jaquette, “Indifference.”

. Cf. Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 4.20.

. Jub. 5:16; 21:4; 33:18; Pss. Sol. 2:18; Wis. 6:7; L.A.B. 20:4; 2 Bar. 13:8; 44:4; T. Job 4:7–8; 43:13; Sipre Num. 42.1.2; Sipre Deut. 304.1.1; see further Bassler, Impartiality, 7–119. For Zeus’s impartiality, see Aeschylus, Suppl. 403–4; cf. Silius Italicus, Pun. 6.467.

. Silva, “Galatians,” 787.

. As Barclay (Gift, 435) notes, God has different criteria of worth. Ancients saw both ethnicity/heritage and deeds as bases for honor (see Butticaz, “Culture”), hence boasting; here neither ethnicity nor law observance obtains divine acquittal (Butticaz, “Culture,” 128).

. On the grammar here, see Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 196. For parenthetical comments, see BDF §465; Rowe, “Style,” 147; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 87.

. Given Isaianic prophecies of gentiles acknowledging Israel’s God, the pillars probably approved of the gentile mission from the start, even if it was not their own mission; see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 94, 220.

. See Farmer, “Peter and Paul,” 46–50. Paul apparently recognizes that Jesus commissioned Peter in a special way; cf. Matt. 16:18. See also Wenham, “Paul’s Use,” 24–25, also comparing (pp. 25–27) their revelations (Matt. 16:15, 17; Gal. 1:12, 15–16) and the contrast with flesh and blood (Matt. 16:17; Gal. 1:1, 12, 16).

. Paul seemed aware of his special role in salvation history (cf., e.g., Rodríguez, Call, 5; Sanders, Paul, 103–4; particularly emphatically, Munck, Salvation, 41–43), though he does not claim to be the only apostle to the gentiles (Dunn, Romans, 656; Hultgren, Romans, 406; Kruse, Romans, 430).

. With Fee, Galatians, 68.

. So Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 2:7. On this figure, see Rhet. Her. 4.32.43–4.33.45; Anderson, Glossary, 77, 112; Aune, Rhetoric, 453–54; Rowe, “Style,” 126–27; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 85; Caird, Language, 135–36.

. See Barclay, Gift, 363, on the “good news of the foreskin” (citing also the comment of Kahl, Galatians Re-imagined, 275).

. Cf. how Vespasian, who took power militarily, affirms his authority by repeated linkage to prior emperors in, e.g., CIL 6.930; ILS 244 (Sherk, Empire, §82, pp. 124–25). See comment on Gal. 2:8.

. See m. Ber. 5:5; t. Taʿan. 3:2; sources in Keener, John, 1:313–14, including 2 Macc. 1:20; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 4.10.3–4; 40.1.1; Josephus, Ant. 8.220–21; Life 65, 72–73, 196–97.

. Theon, Progymn. 2.86–88; 10.3–4; Forbes, “Comparison,” 150–60; Aune, Rhetoric, 110; Anderson, Glossary, 110–11; Martin, “Philo’s Use.” Specifically in biographic material, see Frickenschmidt, Evangelium, 228, 505; Ytterbrink, Gospel, 84, 90 (citing Xenophon, Ages. 8.6; Plutarch, Ages. 15.4); Duff, Plutarch’s Lives, 243, 257, 268, 278; in history, e.g., Justin, Epit. 9.8.11–21. Cf. further discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:557, 570–71.

. See, e.g., Hermogenes, Progymn. 8, “On Syncrisis” 19; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.6, 403.26–32; 2.6.404.5–8; examples in Polybius, Hist. 10.2; Quintilian, Inst. 10.1.85; Plutarch’s parallel biographies. In contrast to the inept writing of Pseudo-Plutarch, Par. Stor. (Mor. 305A–316B), Plutarch looked for genuine features in the tradition that could be paralleled (e.g., Plutarch, Sert. 1.1; Alex. 1.1), and where needed could sometimes end even with a contrast (Comparison of Lysander and Sulla 5.5).

. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Demosth. 33; Fronto, Ant. imp. 1.2.4; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 1.2, 353.9–10; 2.1–2, 376.31–377.2; 2.3, 380.21–22, 30–31; 2.10, 417.5–9, 13–17; Hermogenes, Progymn. 8, “On Syncrisis” 19–20; Aphthonius, Progymn. 10, “On Syncrisis” 43–44S, 32–33R, pp. 114–15. Cf. further discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:571. Mentioning connections with prominent people in letters also augmented one’s own prominence; note, e.g., Pliny the Younger publishing his correspondence with Trajan (Ep. 10) or Symmachus with Ausonius (Ep. 1.13–43). That is not to claim that Paul was advancing his own status here deliberately; but in another sense he was strengthening his rhetorical authority. Self-praise was acceptable if conducted in appropriate ways; see Plutarch, Praising; Marshall, Enmity, 121–29, 266–67; Forbes, “Self-Praise.”

. See Keener, Acts, 1:561–62, 568–73. Cf. already Heinrich Bullinger, Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, on Gal. 2:8 (Bray). For ancient historians exploring patterns and parallels with earlier events, see, e.g., Plutarch, Thes. 1.2; Sert. 1.1; Appian, Hist. rom. 7.8.53; Pelling, Texts and Historian, 6, 8, 102; Trompf, Historical Recurrence; Hornblower, “Thucydides,” 636; Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 97; Hays, Echoes, 101; Cotter, “Miracle,” 102.

. Energeō is not, however, a standard technical term; see, e.g., Hadas, Aristeas, 182, on Let. Aris. 210.

. Cf. Acts 10:44–46; 19:6; Dunn, Galatians, 105.

. Cf., e.g., Rom. 1:5; 12:3, 6; 15:15; 1 Cor. 1:4–5; 3:10; Eph. 3:2, 7–8; 4:7. See Dunn, Galatians, 108, comparing charismata (χαρίσματα; Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 1:7; 12:4, 9, 28, 30–31; cf. Rom. 1:11; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6; 1 Pet. 4:10; 1 Clem. 38.1; Ignatius, Smyrn. title; Pol. 2.2).

. As Burton (Galatians, 91) notes, the difference between the gospel to Paul and the gospel to Peter was “fundamentally not one of content but of the persons to whom it was addressed.”

. Paul expected recipients of the true Spirit to be able to distinguish their experience from that of recipients of other spirits (2 Cor. 11:4), though some might be more skilled at recognizing such distinctions (1 Cor. 12:10) and others might highlight the theological connections entailed in receiving the true Spirit (1 John 3:24; 4:1–3, 6, 13; 5:6, 8).

. 1 Clement (5.2) seems to include Paul (5.5) as well as Peter (5.4) as pillars of the church (as here, without direct reference to a spiritual temple). For these chief leaders, including in subsequent tradition, see Lightfoot, Galatians, 292–374 (“St Paul and the three”).

. E.g., Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33; Acts 3:1, 3–4, 11; 4:1, 13, 19; 8:14, 17, 25; cf. John 13:23–24; 20:2–4; 21:7, 20; keeping in mind the early decease of John’s brother in Acts 12:2. For the Jewish name “John,” see also, e.g., CIJ 2:312, §1367; 2:391, §1468; Josephus, Ant. 8.397; 10.168; 20.14; War 1.59–60, 67–68; 2.292; Life 192; and passim.

. Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; cf. 13:3. Jerome (Comm. Gal. 1.2.7–8 [Edwards]) also notes this association, as do many more recent commentators (e.g., Gundry, Matthew, 342). Some compare Qumran’s use of twelve and three (e.g., Brinsmead, Galatians, 104–5), although at Qumran the three were separate from the twelve (Driver, Scrolls, 523).

. Augustine and Ambrosiaster confuse the two Jameses; see Pollmann and Elliott, “Galatians,” 58. James was one of the most common Judean names (e.g., Josephus, Life 96; CPJ 2:137, §235; 3:179; CIJ 1:267, §340; 2:117, §890; 2:155, §967; 2:186, §1017; 2:212, §1161; 2:391, §1467; 2:414, §1505; Williams, “Names,” 86).

. BDAG cites, e.g., Life of Aesop G 106 P; cf. Lightfoot, Galatians, 109, for Euripides, Iph. Taur. 57; Aeschylus, Ag. 897. Other figurative comparisons with pillars also appear, e.g., Pindar, Nem. 4.81. As background for Gal. 2:9, so, e.g., Marius Victorinus, Ep. Gal. 1.2.7–9 (Edwards).

. Other suggestions explain the title more readily than the (nevertheless ingenious) connection to Jesus tradition in Wenham and Moses, “Pillars.”

. Pindar, Ol. 2.81–82 (using a different term); Seneca Y., Tro. 6–7. Cf. Scipio as a city wall in Valerius Maximus, Mem. 4.1.12.

. Cicero, Verr. 2.3.76.176.

. Aus, “Pillars”; followed by Longenecker, Galatians, 57; Martyn, Galatians, 205. See Gen. Rab. 43:8.

. Sir. 36:29 [LXX 36:24]; 1QSa (= 1Q28a) 1.12; 4Q550a–b frg. 2–3, esp. 3.4; 2 Bar. 2:1–2; 4 Bar. 1:2; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen. 46:28; 49:19; Exod. 15:15; Num. 20:29; as an image perhaps of health, cf. Ps. 144:12; a prominent rabbi in ʾAbot R. Nat. 25A.

. E.g., Jerome, Comm. Gal. 1.2.7–8 (connecting this with all believers in Rev. 3:12); Brinsmead, Galatians, 104–5; Bruce, Apostle, 153; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 545; Bauckham, “James,” 442–49; Witherington, Grace, 143; Martyn, Galatians, 205; Buscemi, Lettera, 177; Fee, Galatians, 69; Moo, Galatians, 137; Das, Galatians, 190.

. For Jewish figurative temple imagery, see, e.g., Ps. 114:2; 1QS 8.5–6; 4Q511 f35.2–3; Gärtner, Temple; among gentiles, see Porphyry, Marc. 19.318–19; Richardson, “Spiritual Sacrifices”; Richardson, “Influence”; treatment in Keener, Acts, 1:1033–34; Keener, Mind, 147–49.

. Dunn, Galatians, 109–10, citing Barrett, “Pillar Apostles”; Ezek. 40–48; Jub. 1:17, 27–28; 1 En. 90:28–29; 11QT; 2 Bar. 32:3–4. In Rev. 3:12, however, all believers apparently constitute pillars in the eschatological temple.

. On the historical roots of this tradition, see further Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:601–15; Keener, Matthew, 423–30.

. 1 Clem. 5.2.

. With Lampe, Seal, 73; Betz, Galatians, 100; Dunn, Beginning, 456n173.

. E.g., Betz, Galatians, 96–97; McLean, “Galatians 2.7–9”; Longenecker, Galatians, 55–56; Martyn, Galatians, 212. Nevertheless, Das (Galatians, 185–86) demonstrates the Pauline character of the language here.

. Polybius, Hist. 38.10.8.

. Grasping one’s right hand could communicate assurance and encouragement (Valerius Maximus, Mem. 1.7.5; Longus, Daphn. 3.32), affection (Polybius, Hist. 31.24.9; Virgil, Aen. 1.408; Tacitus, Hist. 1.15; Lucian, Affairs 9; Aristaenetus, Erotic Letters 2.7, line 29; cf. Hurschmann, “Gestures,” 834), appreciation (Xenophon, Cyr. 6.3.36), comfort (M. Aurelius in Fronto, M. Caes. 1.2.1), congratulations (Xenophon, Hell. 5.1.3), gratitude (Quintus Curtius, Alex. 3.6.17), greeting (Homer, Od. 20.197; Virgil, Aen. 1.514–15; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 33; Jos. Asen. 5:7/11), farewell (Plutarch, Them. 31.5; Hurschmann, “Greeting,” 1022), trust (Quintus Curtius, Alex. 3.6.12), or a welcome home (Homer, Od. 19.415; 24.398, 410; Aeschylus, Ag. 34–35). I borrow here from fuller discussions in Keener, “Pillars,” esp. 51–55; Keener, Acts, 3:3316–17.

. Sophocles, Philoc. 812–13; Oed. col. 1632; Euripides, Heracl. 307–8; Xenophon, Cyr. 4.2.7, 17–19; 8.4.25–26; Hell. 4.1.38; Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. 4.99–100; Cornelius Nepos, Gen. 14 (Datames), 10.1; Justin, Epit. 11.15.13; Virgil, Aen. 3.610–11; 8.124 (welcome and nonhostility); 10.517; Livy, Hist. 25.16.13; Tacitus, Ann. 2.71; 15.28; Hist. 1.15 (during adoption); cf. also Lightfoot, Galatians, 110; Betz, Galatians, 100; Wansink, “Law,” 990. Some resented Pythagoreans offering this gesture of good faith only to fellow Pythagoreans (Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 35.257).

. E.g., Xenophon, Cyr. 4.6.10; 5.2.14; 6.1.48; Anab. 2.3.28; 7.3.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 6.84.4; Virgil, Aen. 11.165, 178, 292; Livy, Hist. 45.12.6; Tacitus, Hist. 1.54; 2.8; 2 Macc. 12:12; Josephus, Life 30.

. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 38.47.

. Quintus Curtius, Alex. 4.2.17.

. The gesture could, for example, show honor to a queen (cf. Polybius, Hist. 13.7.8).

. Bruno the Carthusian on Gal. 2:9 (Levy).

. Witherington, Grace, 144, citing for the hierarchical expression Josephus, Ant. 18.328–29.

. By giving one’s right hand one could accept a suppliant (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 8.2.1) or one in submission (Polybius, Hist. 29.27.6), welcome a defector (Plutarch, Cor. 23.5; Josephus, Life 370), welcome an emissary (cf. Let. Aris. 179), assure someone of mercy or favor (1 En. 71:3; Josephus, Ant. 19.219; Quintus Curtius, Alex. 3.12.17; cf. 6.7.35), show special hospitality with assurance of safety (Pseudo-Callisthenes, Alex. 2.14), or pledge protection, support, or safe-conduct (Livy, Hist. 30.12.18; Josephus, Ant. 18.326, 328, 334; 20.62; J.W. 6.345, 433).

. Esler, “Agreement.” One could swear an oath or promise while clasping right hands (Sophocles, Philoc. 942; Trach. 1181; Euripides, Hel. 838–39; Med. 21; Xenophon, Anab. 2.3.28; Longus, Daphn. 3.32; Josephus, Ant. 18.328, 334). Perhaps also relevant is the act of swearing while lifting one’s right hand (Gen. 14:22; Exod. 6:8; Num. 14:30; Deut. 32:40; Ezek. 20:5; Dan. 12:7; Rev. 10:5–6; Jub. 13:29; Xenophon, Cyr. 6.1.3; cf. Chariton, Chaer. 3.2.5).

. Das, Galatians, 191, 200.

. Revoking mercy once offered by the giving of the hand in Quintus Curtius, Alex. 6.7.35, is protested in 6.10.11, 14.

. Valerius Maximus, Mem. 9.2.1; Josephus, J.W. 2.450–56; cf. Ps. 144:8, 11; Cicero, Phil. 13.2.4. To rebel again after giving the right hand was treacherous (Xenophon, Anab. 1.6.6–7).

. Cf., e.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 110; Betz, Galatians, 100. Others also recognize an agreement here, e.g., Lampe, Seal, 73.

. Wansink, “Law,” 990. Cf. Sampley, Partnership, 27; but qualifications in Horsley, Documents 3, 19, §4.

. Or, the mission based in Antioch’s church (so Martyn, Galatians, 208). Likewise, that we remember the poor may speak of Antioch’s church sending relief for the poor (de Boer, Galatians, 126; Downs, Offering, 35), for which Acts 11:30 and 12:25 are a specific earlier model.

. Pace Blauw, Missionary Nature, 95.

. With Das, Galatians, 184. Hengel (Peter, 57), however, suggests that the agreement in Gal. 2:7–9 proved impossible to keep in the Diaspora because the churches there were mixed. Schnabel (Paul the Missionary, 48–49) argues that Gal. 2:7–9 is not a turf division (a sort of comity agreement) along ethnic or geographic lines.

. With Witherington, Grace, 141; Watson, Gentiles, 72.

. Ambrosiaster, Comm. Gal. 2.7.8 (Edwards).

. Cf. Bruce, Peter, 31; Rom. 1:5–6, 13–15; 15:20–24; 2 Cor. 10:12–16. Luke also depicts Peter as focused in this period on Jewish areas; see Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 59–60.

. Dunn, Galatians, 111–12.

. Dunn, Galatians, 104; Fee, Galatians, 66; Schreiner, Galatians, 118; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 73. They likewise added nothing to his own “honor rating,” which came only from God (Witherington, Acts, 140). A higher common goal could supersede even honor rivalry (Pliny Y., Ep. 3.9.8).

. Joubert, “Leierskap.” On reciprocity for benefaction, see, e.g., Statius, Silv. 4.9; Pliny Y., Ep. 6.6.3; Libanius, Anec. 1.20; Symmachus, Ep. 1.104; Herman, “Gift”; Highet, “Reciprocity”; Harrison, Grace, 1, 15, 50–53, 196, 348, esp. here 40–43; cf. Euripides, Hyps. frg. 759a.63/1584. Favors necessarily incurred obligation; deSilva (Honor, 109) notes Seneca Y., Ben. 1.4.3; 2.35.3–4; 5.11.5; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 8.14.3, 1163b12–15; see also, e.g., Euripides, Hyps. frg. 759a.63 (1584); Peliad. frg. 608; Libanius, Comp. 2.9.

. See, e.g., 1QM 11.8–9, 13; 13.14; 14.7; 1QpHab 12.3, 6, 10; Dupont-Sommer, Writings, 397; Fitzmyer, “Jewish Christianity,” 244; cf. Hengel, Acts and History, 118; Hengel, Property, 34 (though acknowledging their economic need); cf. Flusser, Sage, 69; for Gal. 2:10, see Buscemi, Lettera, 179; for poor Jewish anawim piety, also Betz, Galatians, 102.

. Longenecker, Galatians, 60.

. Keck, “Poor”; Hultgren, Romans, 559; Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 170–75.

. For “the poor” as a character type in the LXX, see Roth, Blind, Lame, Poor, 112–32.

. Arguing that the requirement was to help the Judean poor, see, e.g., Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 2.10; Jerome, Comm. Gal. 1.2.10 (Edwards); so also Ephrem; Chrysostom, Hom. Heb. 2 (Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 160–61); Fee, Galatians, 70; de Boer, Galatians, 126. The principle is likely wider, however.

. Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 157–82.

. Josephus, Ant. 16.171. See Nickle, Collection, 87–89, 130 (cf. also Laing, “Collection”), although more helpful regarding the analogous logistics (cf. such logistics in Trebilco, Communities, 13–16; earlier concerns in Cicero, Flac. 28.66–67) than on some other points. Embracing offerings of this character from gentile believers in the Diaspora would treat them as Diaspora Jews, an approach that much of the Jerusalem church would resent.

. Although the term translated as eager and its cognates appear more widely, Paul does apply such terminology for eagerness to caring for the poor in 2 Cor. 8:8, 16.

. With, e.g., Das, Galatians, 194.

. See Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 190, 339. Paul’s emphasis on himself here is not a deliberate contrast with Barnabas; that view would argue from silence (Longenecker, Galatians, 60–61; Das, Galatians, 194; pace Burton, Galatians, 99–100).

. See, e.g., Pliny Y., Ep. 9.38.

. With Dunn, Beginning, 934–35; Downs, Offering, 36–37; Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 187. Pace those who argue that 2:10 refers to the collection, e.g., Mussner, Galaterbrief, 124–26.

. Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 104.

. Oakes, Galatians, 13; Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 291–92.

. Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 140–45, 292. Longenecker (293) highlights the contrast between this approach and that of other Greco-Roman associations. For the usual limitations of charity to one’s own kinship or ethnic group, see, e.g., Pilch, “Altruism,” 8; to the righteous, cf. y. Ḥag. 2:1, §11.

. The context of 2 Cor. 8:14, in contrast to Rom. 15:25–27, suggests material reciprocity.

. Cf. Clarke, “Remembering the Poor.”

. Nickle, Collection, 129–42, esp. 138; Dunn, Beginning, 459; Dunn, Galatians, 114; Witherington, Corinthians, 425; cf. Kim, “Tradition of Pilgrimage”; Schreiner, Romans, 776. Still, Harrison (Grace, 304–7) notes that Paul neglects the key biblical texts for this idea.

. See Nanos, Mystery, 18, 244, 249; Sanders, Paul, 686; cf. Donaldson, Gentiles, 252.

. Cf. the ideology preserved in Matt. 10:5–6; 15:24.

. For Paul’s own appreciation for ties with Jerusalem, see further Hill, Hellenists, 173–78 (against F. C. Baur).

. Watson, “Collection,” chap. 7; followed by Dunn, Beginning, 935n310; Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 161–63, citing also Tertullian, Marc. 5.3 (though most other patristic evidence that Longenecker cites on 164–69 could represent simply general application, as in Chrysostom, and argues from silence); Longenecker, Remember the Poor, 199, 204. The single requirement is too limited, however, to suggest that gentiles embrace all righteousness as defined by the Torah (pace Dunn, Beginning, 460).

. See, e.g., Homer, Od. 6.207–8; 14.57–58; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 12.1.7; Cornelius Nepos, Gen. 5 (Cimon), 4.1–2; Publilius Syrus, Sent. 274; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 4.8.ext. 2; Seneca Y., Lucil. 95.51; Artemidorus, Onir. 3.53; Kim, Stewardship and Almsgiving, 253–77; Hoyt, “Poor in Luke-Acts,” 84–96; Watson, “Collection,” 31–47; for a comparison with Jewish aid to the poor, see Watson, “Collection,” 123–39.

. Boer, Morality, 151–78; Watson, “Collection,” chaps. 2–4; Keener, Acts, 2:1059–60.

. Schiffman, “Crossroads,” 124.

. E.g., Prov. 29:7; Ezek. 16:49; Tob. 1:3; 2:14; 4:7; Sir. 4:1–8; 17:22; Josephus, Ant. 4.237; T. Job 9–12; 15:1; T. Iss. 3:8; Ps.-Phoc. 23–24, 29; CD 6.21; 14.13–16; Jos. Asen. 10:11/12; m. ʾAbot 1:2, 5; 5:13; m. Šeqal. 5:6; t. B. Qam. 11:3; t. B. Meṣ. 3:9; t. Demai 3:16; t. Peʾah 4:19–21; t. Šeqal. 2:16; CIJ 1:142, §203; Kim, Stewardship and Almsgiving, 277–83; Watson, “Collection,” 80–96, 106–19; Briones, “Tobit,” esp. 159–62; one discussion of organization in Keener, Acts, 2:1263–64.

. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.283.

. With Dunn, Beginning, 467.

. Cf. 1 En. 98:11; Jub. 6:10; 21:6; t. Demai 2:24. Some deemed this commandment a small one (Sipre Deut. 76.1.1; 76.3.2), but the strictest Jews treated the consumption of blood as a capital crime (CD 3.6; cf. 12.12–13). The biblical principle seems to have been to value the life (which was in the blood; Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:11, 14; Deut. 12:23) even of animals, and perhaps envisioned a more humane (i.e., quick) way of killing them.

. If Galatian believers envisioned Paul’s collection as similar to the temple tax, they may have viewed Paul as subordinate to Jerusalem (Hurtado, “Collection,” 48); but again, Paul likely wrote Galatians before the collection first mentioned in 1 Cor. 16.

. Although Paul’s social argument in 1 Cor. 8:1–13 and 10:23–33 sounds moderate, the intervening theological argument of 10:1–22 is probably as “hard line” as Rev. 2:14, 20; see Keener, Corinthians, 73, 84–88; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 365–66, 395, 484.

. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 278–79; Klauck, Context, 16.

. Cf. Winter, Left Corinth, 6–7, 288–93. Cf. the kosher butchery in Rome in Williams, “Bubularius.”

. Keener, Acts, 2:1778.

. Cf. Dunn, Galatians, 122–24; Dunn, Beginning, 460–61.

. For the flow of thought, cf. Keener, Romans, 144–46.

. Longenecker, Galatians, 64, citing Ps.-Clem. Hom. 17.19; Tertullian, Marc. 1.20; 5.3; Praescr. 23; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.12.15.

. Longenecker, Galatians, 64, citing Origen, Cels. 5.64; Jerome, Comm. Gal. 2:1ff.

. Longenecker, Galatians, 64, citing Tertullian, Marc. 1.20; 5.3; Praescr. 23.

. Lightfoot, Galatians, 129–30 (noting on 130n2 that despite Jerome’s attribution to Origen, it is missing in Origen, Cels. 2.1); Bruce, Galatians, 133; Longenecker, Galatians, 64, citing Clement of Alexandria, Hyp. 5, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.12. This view is adequately refuted by Jerome, Comm. Gal. 1.2.11 (Edwards).

. Lightfoot, Galatians, 130; Longenecker, Galatians, 64, citing Origen, Strom. 10 (but contrasting Origen’s subsequent Cels. 2.1); Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 2.11–12 (in addition to trying to keep from alienating Jews); Chrysostom, In illud, in faciem Petro restiti; Jerome, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 2:11 (but contrasting Jerome’s subsequent Pelag. 1.22); Jerome’s epistle to Augustine (Augustine, Letters 75.3.11). See also Hansen, Galatians, 61; Pollmann and Elliott, “Galatians,” 54. On Chrysostom’s understanding, see further Mitchell, “Hypocrisy.” Jerome also found in this incident “the end of Judaism” (Pollmann and Elliott, “Galatians,” 48).

. The term “hypocrite” originally meant “play-actor” (e.g., Aristotle, Poet. 18.19, 1456a), though it had long before this taken on the connotations of moral pretense now more familiar from our literature (e.g., Sir. 1:29; Let. Aris. 219); see comment at Gal. 2:13.

. Longenecker, Galatians, 64, citing Augustine, Ep. Gal., on Gal. 2:11ff.; see also Augustine, Letters 40.4. In the twelfth century, Robert of Melun (on Gal. 2:11) and Peter Lombard (on Gal. 2:14) also note the disagreement between Jerome and Augustine (Levy). In his time, Augustine held the minority view, able to cite only Cyprian and Ambrose in support of his own position (Lightfoot, Galatians, 130–31n3); but his position carried subsequent generations (132).

. Pollmann and Elliott, “Galatians,” 57; Bedford, Galatians, 50–51.

. Lightfoot, Galatians, 131; Myers, “Law, Lies and Letter Writing,” 138.

. See here Erasmus Sarcerius, Ann. Gal., on Gal. 2:11 (Bray).

. Cf. Rudolf Gwalther, Serm. Gal., on Gal. 2:11 (Bray), on reprimanding even those of higher worldly rank.

. E.g., Burton, Galatians, 105; Barclay, Obeying, 76; Betz, Galatians, 105n436; Dunn, Galatians, 116n1; pace Lüdemann, Paul, 62.

. Witherington (Grace, 97) rightly cites Rhet. Her. 1.9.15; Rhet. Alex. 31.1438b.19–23; Cicero, Inv. 1.20.29; Quintilian, Inst. 4.2.87. Still, emotion was known to scramble sequence (Pseudo-Dionysius, Epid. 4.269; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.9, 413.12–14).

. As noted by Jegher-Bucher (“Betrachtung”), it is no mere digression.

. DeSilva, Readings, 20.

. As an analogy; deSilva, Readings, 111.

. Lyons, Autobiography, 163; Lyons, Galatians, 129–30; Witherington, Grace, 184; Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 37. Note the critique by Hock, “Paul and Education,” 213. Note such comparison in Gal. 2:7–8. For social rhetoric analogies, cf. Daniels, “Gossip.”

. Not all scholars see a major break between Paul and Antioch. See, e.g., Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 218; Schreiner, Galatians, 145; more recently, Porter, Paul, 195; cf. also Bennema, “Conflict.” Against unfounded speculations regarding the church at Antioch more generally, see Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 260–61, 279–91.

. Those who deem it probable include Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 61; Hill, Hellenists, 126; Sanders, Paul, 137; more strongly, Meeks, Urban Christians, 113; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 148; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 143; Dunn, Galatians, 130; Daniels, “Gossip,” 177.

. Martyn, Galatians, 186 (also 243), using an argument from silence; cf. also 189, where he advances another argument from what he concedes is silence.

. Cf. Carson, “Mirror-Reading,” 99, 112.

. See Esler, Galatians, 127–29, 132, followed by Witherington, Grace, 130; Das, Galatians, 205. Cf. Daniels, “Gossip,” 173–77.

. Matt. 5:39 // Luke 6:29; cf. Rom. 12:14; 1 Pet. 2:23. Some others in antiquity valued a similar ethic; see, e.g., Musonius Rufus, Lect. 10, p. 78.11; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11m, p. 92.4–17; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 5.39; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.1.3; b. Ber. 17a; b. Šabb. 88b, bar. Deposed from his authority for insulting the dignity of Rabbi Joshua, Rabbi Gamaliel II had to go around and apologize (y. Taʿan. 4:1, §14).

. Downs, Offering, 55.

. The alternative perspective survived (cf. Phil. 3:2; Titus 1:10–11, 14; 3:9) and may persist in the Pseudo-Clementine literature (cf. Gager, Anti-Semitism, 124–25), but not among dominant Christian leaders at Antioch; note explicit expressions of respect for Paul in Ignatius, Eph. 12.2; Rom. 4.3; Polycarp, Phil. 3.2; 9.1; 11.2–3.

. Ignatius, Magn. 8.1; 10.3; Phld. 6.1.

. See further Meeks and Wilken, Antioch, 19–20 (though on continuing contact between Jews and Christians in Antioch, see 21–24, 35–36). Tradition made Peter a bishop of Antioch, but Ignatius only two bishops later (Finegan, Archeology of New Testament, 67); Antioch had church leaders well before Peter visited, and Paul was one of them (Acts 13:1).

. Conzelmann (Acts, 123) (cf. Barrett, Acts, 752; Dunn, Acts, 209) thinks that the same incident lies behind Gal. 2:11–14 and Acts 15:39, Luke changing the breach to a personal matter; the differences are too significant, however, and Luke’s account of Paul and Barnabas’s parting hardly depicts it as laudatory (see Keener, Acts, 3:2299–310, esp. 2307–10); moreover, external evidence renders plausible the point of contention that he mentions (cf. Col. 4:10). Far from being incompatible with Paul’s description of Barnabas’s misstep (Paul mentions no rift between himself and his fellow pioneer of the Galatian churches), that evidence reinforces the picture of growing tension between them at this time.

. Cf. a similar complaint in Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 279.

. On early Christianity in Antioch, see Schwemer, “Paulus in Antiochien”; Meeks and Wilken, Antioch; Keener, Acts, 2:1834–40; Bridge, “Antioch.”

. Josephus, J.W. 3.29. Some ranked it fourth (Riesner, Early Period, 111). For its massive size, see Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.5; Pliny E., Nat. 6.18; Herodian, Hist. 4.3.7.

. Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.5; Josephus, J.W. 3.29; coins in Tracey, “Syria,” 238.

. Syria’s Roman governor resided there; see Josephus, Ant. 18.95, 126; Tracey, “Syria,” 243–46.

. Haenchen, Acts, 365; Neil, Galatians, 33; Jeffers, World, 57; Reicke, Era, 194; in Abbott, Acts, 134, over half a million. Jones et al. (“Antioch”) estimate 250,000.

. Stark, Cities, 37.

. See Riesner, Early Period, 111. The densely populated modern town on roughly half of the same site has about 75,000 residents; see Meeks, Urban Christians, 28.

. Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.5.

. Pliny E., Nat. 6.122.

. Chrysostom, Ign. 4. McDonald (“Antioch,” 34) correctly notes that who was counted (citizens or residents) and how far beyond the city proper may account for some of the disparity.

. Pliny E., Nat. 5.18.79; Jones et al., “Antioch.”

. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 268.

. Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.4.

. Finegan, Apostles, 64.

. Finegan, Apostles, 68.

. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 47.16. See further Finegan, Apostles, 65, 68.

. Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.4–6; Josephus, J.W. 1.328; cf. Justin, Epit. 15.4.8; Pliny E., Nat. 5.18.79; Tacitus, Ann. 2.83; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.16. Daphne did, however, also have a synagogue (Meeks and Wilken, Antioch, 9).

. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.39. Josephus’s (J.W. 7.43) apparent claim that more Judeans lived there than anywhere else in the Diaspora certainly overlooks Alexandria. For synagogues there, see Josephus, J.W. 7.44; Meeks and Wilken, Antioch, 8–9, 53–54; CIJ 2:56, §804. Further on its Jewish community, see Metzger, “Antioch-on-Orontes”; Kraeling, “Jewish Community at Antioch,” esp. 131–36.

. Meeks and Wilken, Antioch, 8; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 134; Riesner, Early Period, 111; Schnabel, Missionary, 71.

. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 79–80; cf. Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 249–58.

. Meeks and Wilken, Antioch, 21–24. Bridge (“Antioch,” 225–27, 233–36) deems evidence sometimes cited for early tensions between these groups to be inconclusive.

. Josephus, J.W. 2.479–80.

. Josephus, J.W. 7.100–111; Ant. 12.121–24; Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 184–90, esp. 189–90.

. Josephus, J.W. 7.45.

. See Mena Salas, “Condiciones.”

. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.22.1.

. Finegan, Apostles, 67.

. Cf. Dunn, Galatians, 18, 115–16; Witherington, Grace, 9 (but contrast 153); Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 78.

. Some see this as “a shaming device” (Witherington, Grace, 152), since Paul would have known of some of them; but the Galatians probably would not.

. Although in P46 a single person is in view; defending that as the original reading, see Popkes, “Jakobus.” The approach by O’Neill (Recovery, 37–39) is more conjectural.

. Peter Lombard (on Gal. 2:12) opined that those from James “venerated Christ and the Law with equal reverence” (Levy). Some too quickly identify them with the false teachers of Acts 15:1, 24 (Bruce, Acts, 303; Johnson, Acts, 276).

. Cf., e.g., Matera, Galatians, 89; Martyn, Galatians, 242; de Boer, Galatians, 132; Dunn, Beginning, 479.

. Cf. also the cognates ἀπέρχομαι (aperchomai) in Rom. 15:28; Gal. 1:17, and ἐξέρχομαι (exerchomai) in 2 Cor. 8:17; Phil. 4:15. “From” could contrast with Paul, who was sent not from people (cf. also those “from” “Mount Sinai,” 4:24), but Paul does not specify “sent” here.

. Paul tells us too little, however, for us to connect James with a Noahide-law interpretation of the decree as opposed to Peter’s resident-alien interpretation (a thesis nonetheless argued skillfully in Taylor, “Decrees”).

. Schreiner, Galatians, 140. In any case, many doubt that James acted with deliberate malice; cf., e.g., Schoeps, Paul, 75; Caird, Apostolic Age, 93.

. Cf. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 81; Dunn, Galatians, 125–26; Sanders, Paul, 490; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 285, citing Josephus, Ant. 20.200–201, and noting that “James, at least, was careful not to allow the movement to be accused of having non-observant leaders (Gal. 2.11–14).”

. Paul allows separate eating arrangements in Rom. 14 because in Rome nothing more is at stake (Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 15). At the level of the gospel, Paul was consistent; see Carson, “Inconsistency”; cf. Richardson, “Inconsistency,” despite his language of “inconsistency.”

. Tertullian, Marc. 1.20; 4.3; Richardson, “Inconsistency”; Bruce, Galatians, 133; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 338; Hill, Hellenists, 129; cf. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 76; deSilva, Readings, 106; also noted by Marius Victorinus, Ep. Gal. 1.2.12–13 (Edwards), though still condemning Peter for acting from fear of the circumcision party.

. Noting a frequent (though by no means consistent) sense of the imperfect tense, Matera, Galatians, 85; Witherington, Acts, 455; Hays, “Galatians,” 233; Le Cornu, Galatians, 116. Peter probably ate wherever invited, whether Jewish- or gentile-headed homes and house churches (Oakes, Galatians, 77).

. With, e.g., Le Cornu, Galatians, 126; Sanders, Paul, 464–65.

. See, e.g., Quintilian, Inst. 3.7.24; Eunapius, Lives 495–96; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.66; Statius, Theb. frg. 8; cf. further Litfin, Theology, 65, 104–6; Glad, “Adaptability,” 19; Glad, Paul and Philodemus. Cf. on Alcibiades in Cornelius Nepos, Gen. 7 (Alcibiades), 11.2–6; Plutarch, Alc. 23.4–6.

. On recognition of cultural differences, see, e.g., Cornelius Nepos, Gen. preface 2–3; 15 (Epaminondas), 1.1; Sextus Empiricus, Pyr. 3.198; Seneca Y., Lucil. 88.44; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.27.2, 15; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 21.6; discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:516–17.

. See, e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 66.13–14; Martin, Slavery, 87–88, 93.

. Oakes, Galatians, 78–79, following C. Glad; for excessive adaptation, cf. Glad, “Adaptability,” 20–21; Marshall, Enmity, 71–78; Litfin, Theology, 115–17.

. Cicero, Flac. 11.24; Quint. fratr. 1.2.2.4; Fam. 1.9.11; 5.2.10; Caesar, Gall. W. 4.5; Virgil, Aen. 4.569–70; Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 2.80.1; Pliny Y., Ep. 2.11.22; 8.18.3; Plutarch, Demosth. 13.1–2; Cic. 26.7; Suetonius, Tib. 38; Claud. 39–40; Tacitus, Hist. 2.57, 101; 3.73, 84; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11i, p. 78.15–18; 2.7.11m, p. 94.19–25; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 5.3; Fronto, Amic. 1.19; Apuleius, Apol. 77; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 30.185; on 2 Cor. 1:17, see the excursus in Keener, Corinthians, 159.

. Lucan, Civ. W. 3.52–56; Quintus Curtius, Alex. 4.10.7; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 66; 73.5–7; Tacitus, Hist. 3.85; Quintilian, Decl. 352.1; Tacitus, Hist. 2.29; 5.8; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 27.6.

. He was probably not simply withdrawing “to eat with his newly arrived friends” (pace Oakes, Galatians, 77). Eyewitnesses of events naturally differ in their perspectives. The differences in the perspectives of different actors mentioned in this narrative may be analogous to, though on a lesser level, the major differences between perceptions of Josephus and Justus of their shared experiences during the Judean-Roman war.

. Dunn, Galatians, 122–24.

. If we may believe Acts 11:2–18, Peter had succeeded at that once; but that was before the brief reign of Agrippa I (41–44 CE; see Acts 12:1–23) stoked increasing nationalism. Peter and James had already accommodated Paul’s position even in the heart of Judea (Gal. 2:6–10; Acts 15:7–21); Peter may have hoped that Paul could bend for him here.

. E.g., Robert of Melun on Gal. 2:11 (Levy), arguing that although Peter erred in strategy, he did not sin because his intentions were right.

. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ep. Gal. 2.12–13.

. E.g., Pseudo-Crates, Ep. 16; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5a, p. 10.12–13; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 3.6.2; Philostratus, Apoll. ep. 48; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.1.11; 6.2.58; 9.11.61; see further Fitzgerald, Cracks, 189; for disdaining reputation, cf. also Dio Chrysostom, Or. 66; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.1.8; 6.2.47; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 4.

. Cf. Martyn, Galatians, 237–38, noting also Acts 10:45; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.5.3; cf. 4.5.4.

. Bruce, Galatians, 131; Fung, Galatians, 108; Longenecker, Galatians, 74–75; cf. Dunn, Galatians, 480–82. For increasing nationalism in this period, see Keener, Acts, 2:1869, 1875–76; 3:3133, 3173; cf. 3269. Alternatively, Le Cornu (Galatians, 129) suggests that it refers to the Jewish community in Antioch itself. While this scenario is not impossible, the Antiochian Jewish community had many God-fearers and was probably less strict than was Jerusalem.

. For thorough discussion, see Dunn, Galatians, 128, 133; Dunn, “Echoes”; cf. discussion of Jewish polemical rhetoric in Johnson, “Slander.”

. This is the only use of the title so far in Galatians, and the only use in this context. This is also the only use of the title in Galatians that is articular (2:7–9) as opposed to the nontitular anarthrous appearance of the noun in 5:6, 11; 6:15 (contrast 1 Cor. 7:19).

. See also Smith, Symposium, 176.

. E.g., Jerusalem believers’ shared meals would follow all traditional Jewish food customs (Martyn, [Galatians, 232], who thinks that Antioch’s believers did not). Even in Antioch, however, Jewish believers presumably kept biblical kashrut (see, e.g., Rudolph, Jew to the Jews, 3–4, 209).

. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 147.

. t. ʿAbod. Zar. 4:6.

. Smith, Symposium, 160–61; see the examples in Le Cornu, Galatians, 122–23, such as Tanna debe Eliyyahu pp. 46, 48 (whoever dines with a gentile has started down the slippery slope toward idolatry).

. Le Cornu, Galatians, 122, citing Julia Severa in Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 123.

. Cf. Tob. 1:11, avoiding “the food of the gentiles.”

. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 283; Hill, Hellenists, 141–42; Fee, Galatians, 73. Dunn (“Incident”) suggests that the gentiles practiced only the Noahide restrictions (as in Acts 15:20).

. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 274–75; Dunn, Galatians, 118, citing Dan. 1:8–16; Tob. 1:10–13; Jdt. 10:5; 12:2, 9–10, 19; Add. Esth. 14:17 (= 4:17); 3 Macc. 3:4–7; Jos. Asen. 7:1; 8:5. Sanders (Jesus to Mishnah, 275) notes even their insistence on (or at least preference for) Judean oil; Josephus, J.W. 2.591; Life 74; Ant. 12.120. For meal separatism due to foods, see also Smith, Symposium, 163–65. Hill (Hellenists, 118–19) too quickly dismisses a range of evidence.

. 1 Macc. 1:62; cf. Dan. 1:8–16; priests in Josephus, Life 14.

. 4 Bar. 7:37.

. Song Rab. 7:8, §1.

. So Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.282; see also evidence in Trebilco, Communities, 18; cf. Nanos, “Norms.” Contrast suspicions in t. ʿAbod. Zar. 4:6; cf. Tob. 1:10.

. E.g., m. Demai 2:2; 4:5; m. Maʿaś. 5:3; m. Maʿaś. Š. 3:3. For negative later rabbinic views of commoners, see, e.g., m. ʾAbot 3:11; m. Demai 2:2; m. Maʿaś. Š. 3:3; m. Ḥag. 2:7; m. Ṭohor. 4:5, 8:3, 5; t. ʾAhil. 5:11.

. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 285–308 (though the potentially relevant evidence for Syria may be too quickly dismissed on 301–2); Das, Galatians, 219–20, following Sanders; pace Dunn.

. Dunn, Galatians, 121.

. Nanos, Mystery, 349–53.

. Pharisees also respected James; see Theissen, Gospels, 230, regarding Josephus, Ant. 20.200–201, in light of Josephus, J.W. 2.162; Life 191.

. Neusner, Politics to Piety, 86; Goodman, State, 77; cf. Niebuhr, “Pharisäer.” This is not to argue that they intended to follow a priestly level of purity (see the warning of Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 131–254).

. Although this seems more probable than not, arguments from what we would expect an author to have said remain arguments from silence. Paul could have omitted the title in Galatians simply because he neglected to include it or because he had reason to doubt that the Galatians, unlike (for some reason) the Philippians, knew what Pharisaism was.

. Neusner, Beginning, 27. Neusner estimates that about two-thirds of Shammai/Hillel pericopes concern table fellowship (Neusner, Politics to Piety, 86).

. E.g., t. Demai 3:6; ʾAbot R. Nat. 31, §68; 32, §72B; b. Ber. 43b; y. Demai 2:3.

. If these were Pharisees, they likelier reflect the Shammaite wing of Pharisaism, which was traditionally less friendly toward gentiles (Falk, Jesus, 75; Donaldson, Gentiles, 275; Theissen, Sociology, 83).

. For examples, see Le Cornu, Acts, 574, citing Pirqe R. El. 29. See esp. Barclay, Gift, 368–69, citing Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 34.1.2; Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.2; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 33; Let. Aris. 139–42; 3 Macc. 3:4; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.173–74, 209–10, 234; also Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 434–37.

. Dunn, Galatians, 119, cites Jub. 22:16; m. ʾOhal. 18:7 (avoiding gentile homes because of corpse defilement; cf. 11QT 48.11) and the stereotype of Jews in Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.1–2.

. For greater laxness in the Diaspora, see Barclay, “Apostate,” cited to this effect in Barclay, Gift, 369n47.

. Jub. 22:16 (trans. O. Wintermute, OTP 2:98). For this and what follows in this paragraph, see Keener, Acts, 2:1778.

. Jdt. 10:5; 12:2, 9, 19.

. LXX Esther 4:17x = Add. Esth. 14:17.

. Tob. 1:10–13; see Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 274, citing many of these sources as well as Jos. Asen. 7:1; 8:5; 18:5; 20:8. Joseph avoided dining with Egyptians at the same table in Jos. Asen. 7:1; probably this has some textual basis in Gen. 43:32. For an anthropological approach to ancient Jewish avoidance of eating with gentiles, see Esler, Community, 73–86.

. Josephus, J.W. 2.591; Ant. 12.120; Life 74. See Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 274. Rabbis used Dan. 1:1–16 as their biblical grounds for avoiding gentile wine, because gentiles often poured libations (Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 273).

. See “A Closer Look: Did Jews Eat with Gentiles?” (pp. 152–55).

. For rising nationalism in this period, see Keener, Acts, 2:1869, 1875–76; 3:3133, 3173; cf. 3269; Bruce, Peter, 35; Cousar, Galatians, 47; Das, Galatians, 229. For ultraconservative Jewish Christians working against Peter and Paul in 40s and 50s, esp. in Jerusalem, see Brown, “Part Two: Rome,” in Brown and Meier, Antioch and Rome, 126.

. Cf. Dunn, Galatians, 125; Moo, Galatians, 148.

. I condense and adapt here material from Keener, Acts, 2:1769, 1777–78, 1787–91.

. For the wide range of Jewish views concerning gentiles, see Donaldson, Gentiles, 52–74; Boccaccini, Judaism, 251–65.

. E.g., t. Šabb. 2:7–8.

. E.g., t. ʿAbod. Zar. 1:1; see further Cohen, “Attitude and Reality.” CD 11.4–5 warns against it on the Sabbath.

. Le Cornu (Acts, 577–78) cites, e.g., m. Šeb. 4:3; 5:9; m. Giṭ. 5:8; t. ʿAbod. Zar. 1:3. Although 1 Macc. 1:14–15 abhors apostates to gentile practices, 1 Maccabees welcomes gentile allies (1 Macc. 8:17–29; 12:2, 5, 16; 14:16, 24, 40).

. Josephus, J.W. 2.463.

. Jub. 22:16 (trans. O. Wintermute, OTP 2:98).

. See also Jub. 2:19. More generally, although the term ἀφορίζω (aphorizō) can refer to any sort of separation, the LXX often applies the term to consecration or separation from whatever is unclean and to the Lord (e.g., Exod. 19:23; Lev. 20:25; Ezek. 48:9, 20). Paul employs the term thus (Rom. 1:1), including the OT prophetic call for God’s people to be separate (2 Cor. 6:17, citing Isa. 52:11). For prohibitions of mixing, see, e.g., Lev. 20:24–26; Ezra 10:11; 1 Esd. 8:70–71, 86–87; 2 Macc. 14:3, 37–38; Let. Aris. 138.

. Let. Aris. 139–42; Philo, Moses 1.278.

. Josephus, J.W. 2.488. Even Philo (Moses 1.278) acknowledges that Jewish customs set them apart from other peoples, preventing mingling.

. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.257. Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.210) warns against welcoming gentiles who lack genuine commitment to Judaism; see Barclay, “Paul among Jews,” 104.

. 3 Macc. 3:4–7; see also Jdt. 10:5; 12:2, 9, 19; LXX Esther 4:17x = Add. Esth. 14:17; Tob. 1:10–13; Sevenster, Anti-Semitism, 139; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 274; Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 272, citing Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.148.

. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.257–58. Some gentiles attributed this separatism originally partly to Egypt having expelled the Hebrews for fear of contagion from the Hebrews’ leprosy (Justin, Epit. 36.2.15; cf. 36.2.12).

. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.259.

. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.260–61.

. For this suggested origin for their name, the majority view, see, e.g., Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 13; Moore, Judaism, 1:60–61; Finkelstein, Pharisees, 76; Jeremias, Parables, 223; Davies, Pharisaism, 6–7; Simon, Sects, 27–31; Cohen, Maccabees, 162.

. E.g., Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 100–101. Dunn (“Echoes”) finds in Gal. 2:12 the language of intra-Jewish polemic.

. See, e.g., Neusner, Beginning, 27; Neusner, Politics to Piety, 86. The strictest pietists forbade eating with a menstruating woman (t. Šabb. 1:14, citing a much older rule).

. ʾAbot R. Nat. 32, §72B (cf. also 31, §68; b. Ber. 43b; y. Demai 2:3). Sanders (Judaism, 441) concedes that Pharisees normally avoided eating with persons lower “on the purity scale,” but correctly doubts that this involved total separation.

. So t. Demai 3:7; for related cautions, t. Demai 3:9. On their untithed food, see also m. Demai 2:2; 4:5; m. Maʿaś. 5:3; m. Maʿaś. Š. 3:3.

. So t. Demai 3:6.

. For the contrast between Pharisees and ʿammê hāʾāreṣ, see, e.g., m. Giṭ. 5:9; m. Ḥag. 2:7; t. Demai 2:5, 14–15, 19; 3:6–7; 6:8; t. Maʿaś. 2:5. For the dangers of excessive contact, see, e.g., m. ʾAbot 3:10/11. The garment of an ʿam hāʾāreṣ could be unclean (m. Ṭohor. 4:5; cf. m. Ḥag. 2:7), an ʿam hāʾāreṣ entering one’s house renders it unclean (m. Ṭohor 8:5), and one’s possessions became unclean if left on the property of an ʿam hāʾāreṣ (m. Ṭohor. 8:3). Still, cf. kinder sentiments in m. Giṭ. 5:9.

. m. ʿAbod. Zar. 5:5.

. E.g., t. ʿAbod. Zar. 4:6.

. For whose views here, see esp. Safrai, “Religion,” 829; cf. also t. Demai 3:14; t. ʿAbod. Zar. 4:11 in Larkin, Acts, 161.

. See m. ʾOhal 18:7; b. Pesaḥ. 9a; cf. John 18:28; 11QT 48.11. Gentile homes counted “as . . . primary sources of impurity” (Le Cornu, Acts, 576, citing m. Kelim 1:1; m. ʾOhal 18:7; m. Naz. 7:3; Le Cornu, Galatians, 117–22, citing 4Q169 f3–4.iii.1; Josephus, Ant. 14.285; J.W. 1.229; m. ʿAbod. Zar. 1:1–2; 5:5; Ger. 3:1–2; m. Kelim 1:1; m. ʾOhal 18:7, 9; m. Naz. 7:3; t. Zabim 2:1; Pirqe R. El. 29). Removal of idols, however, could render a house clean so long as no sources of contamination remained (Le Cornu, Acts, 577, citing m. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:7). Some Tannaim claimed that Moses spoke with Pharaoh outside the city due to idolatry (Mek. Pisha 1.40–41 [Lauterbach, 1:4]).

. See, e.g., m. Šeqal. 8:1. Cf. perhaps Josephus, Ant. 14.285; J.W. 1.229, as interpreted by Le Cornu, Acts, 575.

. Le Cornu (Acts, 576) rightly cites Josephus, Ant. 15.417; J.W. 6.124–25; Ag. Ap. 2.103–4; Philo, Embassy 212; m. Kelim 1:8; cf. also Acts 21:28. 4QMMT warns that gentiles have idolatrous hearts, hence ought not be permitted to sacrifice in the temple.

. See m. Ṭohor. 7:6.

. m. Pesaḥ. 8:8 and t. Pisha 7:13–14. The practice is, contrary to the arguments of some scholars, early enough and even known to some gentiles (Epictetus, Diatr. 2.9.20); see Keener, John, 1:446–47; Keener, Acts, 1:979–82. This does not require it to be pervasive in all locations.

. Pirqe R. El. 29 (Le Cornu, Acts, 574).

. Le Cornu, Acts, 576, citing m. ʿAbod. Zar. 1:1–2.

. Le Cornu, Acts, 583, citing Ger. 3:1–2.

. See 1QS 5.1–2, 10; 8.13; 9.20; 4Q259 3.3–4; 4.1; CD 8.8; 19.20. Emphasizing a different term, prshnu, Dunn (Beginning, 472) notes 4QMMT C 7 = 92.

. See also Let. Aris. 139–42.

. Tacitus, Hist. 5.5; Juvenal, Sat. 14.102–3; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 5.33; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.148; Sevenster, Anti-Semitism, 89–145, esp. 143–44; Smallwood, Jews, 123; Daniel, “Anti-Semitism,” 58–62.

. Tacitus, Hist. 5.5 (trans. C. H. Moore, LCL, 2:181, 183); cf. also Cicero, Flac. 28.69; esp. Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 5.33. Cf. 3 Macc. 3:4 (NRSV): “They kept their separateness with respect to foods. For this reason they appeared hateful to some,” as well as disloyal and hostile to the government (3:7). Jewish exclusivity was a major charge against them (Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 272, citing Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.148).

. So, e.g., Schlier, Galater, 83; deSilva, Readings, 107.

. So, e.g., Das, Galatians, 208.

. Cf. Goppelt, Judaism, 123 (on this passage); Sanders, Paul, 484.

. Eating together created covenantal bonds or friendship ties, as in Gen. 31:54; Jub. 35:27; 36:17; 45:5; Plutarch, Cic. 26.1; Hierocles, Ethics 11.17–19; cf. the Roman caristia, Valerius Maximus, Mem. 2.1.8.

. Matters did change quickly; cf. already Did. 9.1–5; 14.1–3; Ignatius, Phld. 4.1; Smyrn. 6.2; 8.1; Justin Martyr, Dial. 117; Ambrose, Sacr. 4.5.21–23.

. E.g., Pliny Y., Ep. 2.6.2; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 30.29; Plutarch, Table Talk 1.3 (Mor. 619B–619F); Juvenal, Sat. 4.15–18, 24–25, 37–79, 146–58; Lucian, Carousal 43; Z. Rants 7; cf. Martial, Epigr. 3.49; 4.85; 12.28; Friedländer, Life, 1:208; MacMullen, Social Relations, 111; Theissen, Social Setting, 156–58; Smith, Symposium, 17, 33–34, 45, 55–57, 120, 136; Hudson, “Places.”

. E.g., Xenophon, Mem. 3.14.1; Heraclitus, Ep. 9; Pliny Y., Ep. 2.6.3–5; Plutarch, Table Talk 1.2.3 (Mor. 616E); 1.2.5 (Mor. 618A); 2.10.2 (Mor. 644AB); S. Sp., Agesilaus 1 (Mor. 208BC); Suetonius, Jul. 48; Athenaeus, Deipn. 1:12c; cf. Xenophon, Cyr. 2.1.30; t. Bik. 2:10. For associations, cf. P.Lond. 2710 in Klauck, Context, 49. For the contrast between Greek and Roman values, evident in Corinth, see Engels, Roman Corinth, 85–87.

. See Koenig, Hospitality, 53–54; Schottroff, “Holiness”; McRae, “Eating with Honor”; cf. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Comm. 1 Cor. 236–37.

. Cicero, Verr. 2.2.47.117.

. See Aeschines, Leg. 22, 55; further discussion in Keener, John, 2:912–13. One could also raise issues of import there that one could not raise elsewhere (Cicero, Fam. 1.2.3). A shared meal even signifies conversion in Joseph and Aseneth (so Lieber, “Table”).

. Plutarch, Cic. 26.1.

. E.g., Rhet. Her. 3.3.4; Cicero, Fam. 13.36.1; 13.73.2; cf. Lysias, Or. 12.14, §121.

. Homer, Il. 6.212–31, esp. 224. Cf. ties of hospitality to the third generation in Cicero, Fam. 13.34.1; and even beyond death in Euripides, Temenid. frg. 736.

. The host must never betray a guest (Homer, Il. 21.76; Od. 4.534–35; 11.414–20; 14.404–5; Hesiod, Op. 327; Euripides, Cycl. 126–28; Hec. 25–26, 710–20, 850–56; Sthen. frg. 667; Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. 3.377–80; Ovid, Metam. 1.144; 10.225–28; Livy, Hist. 25.16.6; Quintus Curtius, Alex. 8.2.3; Libanius, Speech 10.1), nor a guest, such as Peter, the host (Euripides, Heracl. 1034–36 [even in subsequent generations]; Cicero, Pis. 34.83; by seeking the host’s wife, Ovid, Her. 17.3–4; Tacitus, Hist. 3.41). Such betrayal incurred divine wrath (Homer, Od. 21.26–28; Livy, Hist. 39.51.12; Tacitus, Ann. 2.65; 15.52).

. Aeschines, Leg. 22, 55. For a guest to act unkindly was deceptive treachery (Catullus, Carm. 64.176).

. Lucian, Affairs 9; also to lodge or entertain such a guest (Jos. Asen. 3:2–3/3:3–4).

. Euripides, Alcest. 1039–41. One must provide good food and drink for even unexpected guests (Homer, Il. 9.199–220; Luke 11:6).

. E.g., Pliny Y., Ep. 6.14.1–2.

. Cicero, Att. 12.36.

. Aeschylus, Suppl. 927; Sir. 11:29, 34; 2 John 10–11.

. Sipre Deut. 1.10.1.

. Barclay, Gift, 368.

. In traditional Greco-Roman values this principle could lead to prosecution (Lysias, Or. 9.13, §115) or at least denunciation (e.g., Aeschines, Tim. 193–95; Cicero, Scaur. 17.38); see further Marshall, Enmity, 67–69; cf. Plutarch, Friends 6–7 (Mor. 96AB); Sherk, Empire, 31, §15; Derrett, Audience, 39. For the principle in Paul, see 2 Cor. 6:14–16; Gal. 4:16–17.

. See Marshall, Enmity, 13–21, 245–46. At the least, such a refusal would display contempt (Cicero, Fam. 14.3.1; Pliny Y., Ep. 8.6.9). Cf. also Judge, “Cultural Conformity,” 15, as cited in Witherington, Corinthians, 229.

. See Schreiner, Galatians, 144–45; cf. Cullmann, Peter, 65.

. Nanos, Mystery, 354, 358n45. Cf. Fee, Galatians, 75: fear of rather than caring for the sensitivities of the Jerusalemite visitors.

. The term originally applied only to play-actors, a usage that continued (see, e.g., Aristotle, Poet. 18.19, 1456a; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 37.12.1; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 8.11.ext. 1; Plutarch, Cic. 4.3; Lucian, Icar. 29; Herodian, Hist. 3.8.9; Let. Aris. 219; Blume, “Hypokrites”) but through figurative extension came to be applied commonly to those acting contrary to what they genuinely thought (Epictetus, Diatr. 2.9.20; Plutarch, Educ. 17 (Mor. 13B); Appian, Hist. rom. 12.8.55; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 1.11; 3.7; 9.2; Sir. 1:29; 32:15; 33:2; see also Lichtenberger, “Theater”) including in the Jesus tradition for religious pretense (e.g., Mark 7:6; Matt. 7:5 // Luke 6:42). Ancient moralists condemned hypocrisy (see, e.g., Pss. Sol. 4:6; Stewart, “Domitian”).

. Dunn (Galatians, 127) highlights the repetition of “the truth of the gospel” in Gal. 2:5, 14.

. One may compare the συν (sun)-compounded verbs in 2:12–13: Peter “ate with” gentiles (2:12), other Jews became “co-hypocrites with” him (2:13), and even Barnabas was “carried along with” them (2:13).

. m. ʾAbot 5:18; ʾAbot R. Nat. 40A; b. Yoma 87a. See Mark 9:42; cf. Matt. 5:19.

. Cf. joining in hypocrisy in 2 Macc. 13:3, though the different Greek wording renders dubious any allusion here.

. E.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. 48, §132B.

. See Dunn, “Echoes”; cf. Johnson, “Slander”; Zetterholm, “Incident.”

. E.g., Appian, Hist. rom. 12.8.55; Plutarch, Educ. 17 (Mor. 13B); Demosth. 29.3; Lucian, Icar. 29–30; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 1.11; 3.7; 9.2.

. E.g., Diogenes Laertius, Lives 1.61; Lucian, Runaways 19; Fronto, Amic. 2.7.7; Lucius Verus to Fronto, in Ver. imp. 2.2; in Hellenistic Judaism, see Ps.-Phoc. 48; in Judea, cf. 1QS 4.10; 4Q257 5.8.

. Epictetus, Diatr. 2.9.20 (trans. W. A. Oldfather, LCL, 1:272–73).

. Also cited by Das, Galatians, 210.

. 2 Macc. 6:21, 24; 4 Macc. 6:15, 17.

. Dunn, Galatians, 125.

. With Longenecker, Galatians, 75; Barclay, “Paul among Jews,” 103.

. Meeks, “Jew,” 181; cf. Acts 28:19; Saldarini, Community, 34–36; Tomson, “Israel”; Kraemer, “Meaning.”

. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 219.

. Paul’s opponents perhaps appealed to Barnabas, so Paul may dismiss the matter quickly (Bauckham, “Barnabas”); but we cannot know this for certain.

. The NRSV translates the term in Gal. 2:11 here rendered as opposed (ἀνθίστημι, anthistēmi) in some other passages as “resist” (Rom. 9:19; 13:2; 1 Pet. 5:9) or “withstand” (Eph. 6:13), and it often involves standing against a strong person or force.

. See, e.g., 1QS 6.26–7.9; 7.15–16; Josephus, Ant. 3.67; m. ʾAbot 3:11; b. Sanh. 101a; Matt. 18:15–17; Schiffman, Law, 97–98.

. Some rabbis claimed that shaming another was damnable (m. ʾAbot 3:11; cf. Gen. Rab. 1:5). The concept of losing face in eastern Asia may help us understand the painful nature of shaming here; cf. Durene, “Face”; Hansen, Galatians, 66.

. That is, the matter is not a personal sin, as in Gal. 6:1, but the church’s faith; Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 6:1 (Bray); with Hansen, Galatians, 66; Martyn, Galatians, 235; Das, Galatians, 215. Medieval commentators Haimo of Auxerre on Gal. 2:14 (Levy) and Bruno the Carthusian on Gal. 2:11 (Levy) opine here that public sin demands public reproof.

. t. Kip. 4:12.

. Fitting the use of the term (καταγινώσκω, kataginōskō) in Sir. 14:2; 1 John 3:20–21; with de Boer, Galatians, 131 (though also allowing for divine condemnation); Oakes, Galatians, 78.

. Fitting the use of the term in Sir. 19:5; with Longenecker, Galatians, 72; Moo, Galatians, 143.

. Adapted from Keener, Acts, 3:2303.

. E.g., Publilius Syrus, Sent. 10; Philodemus, Criticism.

. Sir. 19:13; 20:1–2; Sipra Qed. pq. 4.200.3.3; Sipre Deut. 1.3.2; b. ʿArak. 16b, bar.; b. Šabb. 119b; b. Tamid 28a, bar.; see also Manson, Sayings, 210.

. Sipre Deut. 173.1.2; y. Sanh. 7:6, §2.

. Moore, Judaism, 2:153.

. Plutarch, Flatterer 32, in Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 115.

. God honored reproof, but he punished public (as opposed to private) reproof (b. Sanh. 101a). Note Josephus, Ant. 3.67.

. Edersheim (Life, 378) cites b. Šabb. 119b; b. Tamid 28a; b. ʿArak. 16b.

. E.g., m. ʾAbot 3:11; b. Sanh. 107a; other references in Urbach, Sages, 1:253. This theme dominates more the Bavli; cf. Rubenstein, “Ethic” (though he attributes it to the Bavli’s later redactors).

. E.g., y. Moʿed Qaṭ. 3:1, §14; Gen. Rab. 80:1.

. For offenses like anger and pride; 4Q477; Eshel, “Rebukes.”

. Cf. Schiffman, Law, 97–98; Brown, “Scrolls,” 4. Qumranites detested disrespect for fellow members of the community (e.g., 1QS 6.26–7.9; 7.15–16).

. Josephus, Ant. 3.67. Public admonition thus represented the form of rebuke reserved for the severest of circumstances (cf. Gal. 2:14; t. Kip. 4:12).

. Cf. Prov. 3:12; 13:24; 19:18; 23:13; 27:5; Sir. 7:23; 18:13; 30:2, 13; Gen. Rab. 54:3; elsewhere, cf. Confucius, Analects 152 (14.8). Nevertheless, wisdom might demand withholding reproof at times (Prov. 9:7–8; Sir. 20:1).

. Philodemus, Crit. col. 8ab.

. Philodemus, Crit. cols. 23a–24b; Gen. Rab. 80:1.

. Philostratus, Her. 53.19.

. E.g., Seneca Y., Lucil. 67.5.

. Valerius Maximus, Mem. 3.8.ext. 4.

. It was rare (ʾAbot R. Nat. 1A). Some rabbis contended that even teaching in the presence of one’s teacher merited death (Sipra Šem. Mek. d. 99.5.6; b. ʿErub. 63a; b. Tem. 16a).

. Musonius Rufus, Lect. 1, p. 36.6–7.

. See Deut. 7:24; 9:2; 11:25; Judg. 2:14; 2 Chron. 13:7–8; cf. Dunn, Galatians, 117.

. Walking the straight way translates a compound word (ὀρθοποδέω, orthopodeō) that sometimes implied progress but can imply “walking uprightly,” fitting the image, in different words, in Gal. 5:16, 25. Its sense of “proper alignment” fits matching a standard, which Barclay (Gift, 367n44) also finds in 5:25 and esp. 6:16. Later Christian use of the term may depend on Paul’s compound here (Lightfoot, Galatians, 113).

. The first-class condition in the protasis indicates that Peter was in fact living this way; see Longenecker, Galatians, 78; Acts 9:43; 10:23, 28, 48.

. Dunn, Galatians, 115, 128; Das, Galatians, 213.

. Dunn (Galatians, 128) cites Pss. Sol. 1:8 (“Their lawless actions surpassed the gentiles before them”); 8:13 (“There was no sin they left undone in which they did not surpass the gentiles”).

. Niang (Faith, 93–103) highlights Paul’s anticolonial stance in Gal. 2:11–14.

. In addition to references cited here, see Theodotus in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.22.5; in Longenecker, Galatians, 78. Esther and Plutarch were noted at least as early as Lightfoot, Galatians, 114.

. As in Josephus, J.W. 2.463; Plutarch, Cic. 7.6; see Dunn, Galatians, 129, 473. Many gentiles wanted to imitate some Jewish customs, such as resting on the Sabbath, some food prohibitions, fasts, and lighting lamps (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.282; cf. Seneca Y., Lucil. 95.47; Barclay, Obeying, 68–69; Barclay, “Undermine the Law,” 297–98; Das, Debate, 111–12).

. Cf., in later letters to Asia Minor, Ignatius, Magn. 8.1; 10.3; Phld. 6.1. Cf. “medizing” for Persian practice in Plutarch, Arist. 18.4; Mal. Her. 29, 31 (Mor. 864A, D); “hellenists” in Acts (discussion in Keener, Acts, 2:1257–59).

. Josephus, J.W. 2.454.

. Martyn, Galatians, 236. We might recognize an ironic allusion to Esther 8:17 here if the “fear of the Jews” in that passage (perhaps echoed ironically in John 7:13; 19:38; 20:19) corresponded slightly more closely to Peter’s fear of the circumcision faction in Gal. 2:12.

. Recognizing some of these connections, cf. also, e.g., Dunn, Galatians, 127; Hays, “Galatians,” 225; Schreiner, Galatians, 146–47; Wright, Justification, 114; Das, Galatians, 169, 214. In Acts 26:11, Paul himself had once tried to “force” (again, anankazō) Jesus’s followers to renounce Jesus. Luke would have had access to the scene reported in that chapter (see Keener, Acts, 4:3350, 3359–60), though no one would have expected him to preserve Paul’s words verbatim.

. Early second-century rabbis warned against imposing behavior, even by one’s example, that most could not endure; see Daube, “Concessions to Sinfulness,” 8.

. I reluctantly addressed these concerns in online articles, including “On the Non-Trump Evangelicals,” Huffington Post (Oct. 4, 2017); and “Why I Almost Left Evangelicalism,” Christianity Today online (Jan. 25, 2018, concerning events many years earlier). Many others, such as Ed Stetzer, have addressed such concerns far more eloquently than I.

. Betz, Galatians, 114 (citing Rhet. Her. 1.10.17; Cicero, Inv. 1.22.31); Longenecker, Galatians, 81; Korang, “Soteriology”; Witherington, Grace, 169–70.

. Cf. Anderson, Glossary, 30, for orators running ahead of their audience by compact thoughts that must be unpacked or considered.

. Sanders (Paul, 502–3) sees Paul addressing Peter in 2:14 and expounding this point for the Galatians in 2:15–21. Luther (Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 2:16) thinks that with “no flesh justified” Paul turns from Peter to address his gentile readers directly.

. Betz, Galatians, 113–14; Dunn, Galatians, 132; Dunn, Beginning, 471; Sanders, Paul, 502–3. Discerning where a speaker’s discourse ends proves problematic also in, e.g., John 3:10–21; Fronto, Speeches 11.

. Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 154.

. Dunn, Galatians, 132.

. Cf. fuller argument in Schreiner, Galatians, 150.

. Barclay, Gift, 366; Buscemi, Lettera, 77; Aletti, “Fonction.” It is all related to Peter’s behavior (Ngewa, Galatians, 78).

. Barclay, Gift, 370.

. Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 154. Some suggest that Paul here identifies as “a representative of the Jewish people” (Schreiner, Galatians, 169) (cf. perhaps Rom. 7:7–25), perhaps more specifically of Jewish believers. Wright (Faithfulness, 508–9) sees Israel’s experience rhetorically encapsulated in the “I” of 2:18–21.

. Some identify the “we” here especially with Paul and his coworkers (Dalton, “Meaning”).

. Later rabbis in y. Qidd. 4:1, §2; Song Rab. 7:8, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 41:4; lust in b. Šabb. 145b–146a.

. Cf. also Jerome, Comm. Gal. 1.2.15 (Edwards).

. E.g., Pindar, Ol. 13.12; also 11.19–20; Euripides, Alcm. frg. 75 (Stobaeus, Anth. 4.30.2); Antig. frg. 166 (Stobaeus, Anth. 4.30.1); Arch. frg. 232 (Stobaeus, Anth. 4.29.44); Dict. frg. 333 (Stobaeus, Anth. 4.30.5); Mel. frg. 520 (Stobaeus, Anth. 4.22.131); Phoen. frg. 810; also frg. 1027; 1067 (Stobaeus, Anth. 4.29.47); 1068 (Stobaeus, Anth. 4.30.3); frg. 1113 (Stobaeus, Anth. 4.29.35); Lucian, Nigr. 37; cf. Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11k, p. 80.26–31, p. 82.5–18; Quintilian, Decl. 268.6.

. Valerius Maximus, Mem. 6.9.pref.–6.9.9; cf. 2 Chron. 24:17–22; some Stoics, in Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11m, p. 86.21–34, accepted both nature and nurture. Musonius Rufus (Lect. 2) contended that people were born by nature inclined toward virtue.

. Cf. Augustine, Ep. Gal. 16 (1B2.15–18) (Edwards); Bruno the Carthusian on Gal. 2:15 (Edwards); Lightfoot, Galatians, 115. Charles (Jubilees, lxxxiv) compares “sinners of the gentiles” in Gal. 2:15 with Jub. 23:23, “sinners of the gentiles.” Betz (Galatians, 115) associates the title with gentiles’ lack of means of atonement. For application to eliminating stereotypes, see Braxton, “Galatians,” 337.

. m. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1.

. Tob. 4:17; 1 Macc. 2:44, 48; Sir. 13:17; 1 Tim. 1:9; Jude 15; 1 En. 1:9; 5:6; 22:10–13; 91:11–12; 94:5, 11; 95:2–3, 7; 98:10; 100:7–9; 108:6–7, 15; Pss. Sol. 2:34; 13:1; 14:6–7; Sib. Or. 3.304; Tg. Neb. on Judg. 3:10. Such sinners are damned (e.g., Tg. Eccles. 6:6).

. E.g., T. Ab. 9:5–7 A; 4 Ezra 7:138–40; cf. Rom. 3:23; Luke 13:2–5.

. Dunn, Galatians, 133; Das, Galatians, 239. Cf. Boers, “Jews,” 281: “With bitter irony [Paul] throws [Jewish privilege] in the face of Peter and the others.”

. As in something like a concise form of rhetorical sermocinatio (on which see Rowe, “Style,” 144; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 582). Nor was Paul above articulating the idea himself; see 1 Cor. 5:1; 1 Thess. 4:5; Stowers, “Self-Mastery,” 542.

. Dunn, Galatians, 133, citing 1 Macc. 1:34; 2:44, 48; 1 En. 5:4–7; 82:4–5; 1QHa 2.8–12; 1QpHab 5.4–8; Pss. Sol. 4:8; 13:6–12.

. Hermogenes, Inv. 3.3.138, offering an example from Demosthenes, Or. 19.134.

. See further Matt. 11:19 // Luke 7:34; Dunn, Galatians, 133; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 192; Stanton, Gospel Truth?, 149.

. See Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 176–99; Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 200–220. Cf. later reference to a tradition like Mark 2:17 (cf. Luke 19:10) in 1 Tim. 1:15.

. Cf. Garlington, “Believed”; Moo, Galatians, 163.

. Oakes, Galatians, 80.

. Or, “unless they are also justified.”

. For 2:16 as the climax and goal of 2:11–14, see Delgado Gómez, “Abierto.”

. Aletti, “Fonction.”

. Matera, “Development.”

. Kim, New Perspective, 85–99; cf. Sanders, Paul, 179. We must acknowledge differences in formulation, of course; see Donfried, Thessalonica, 19, 89–90; cf. Sanders, Paul, 192–93.

. Kruse, Romans, 201.

. With, e.g., Dunn, Galatians, 134; Hays, Conversion, 71; Hays, “Galatians,” 236; deSilva, Readings, 128; Das, Galatians, 240–41; Riesner, “Rechtfertigung,” 207–11; Sumney, Steward, 78–81.

. Though Paul’s lack of explicit citation of these words there might suggest that it was not offered there in such precise terminology. Murphy-O’Connor (“Gal. 2:15–16a”) even doubts that other Jewish Christians understood their faith in Christ the same way that Paul did.

. E.g., de Boer, “Use”; de Boer, Galatians, 143.

. Cf. Walker, “Paul’s Opponents” (noting that Paul elsewhere describes his opponents only in the third person); Scott, “Common Ground.”

. See Das, “Another Look”; Oakes, Galatians, 86.

. The usual sense of ἐὰν μή (ean mē), by itself; see Donaldson, Gentiles, 113.

. The usual sense of ἐὰν μή in the context of a contrast; Hunn, “ἐὰν μή”; see also the lexical data of Schreiner, Galatians, 163, noting also Zerwick, Greek, 158, §470.

. Dunn, Galatians, 138–39.

. Rhetorically, the forced choice between two alternatives can be called diairesis; see Aune, Rhetoric, 125, citing Aristotle, Rhet. 2.23.10; Cicero, Top. 10.33–34; De or. 2.165; Rhet. Her. 4.40–41; and listing Gal. 2:16 as an example. For leges contrariae, see comment on Gal. 3:12.

. Garnet, “Light,” 28; Dunn, New Perspective, 38. In Paul, Jewish people also must be saved through grace; see Wang, “Jesus as Messiah,” against Gager, Reinventing Paul.

. Howard, Crisis in Galatia, 52–53.

. Sanders, Paul, 516n8.

. Referring to the future judgment; Silva, “Galatians,” 791; Schreiner, Galatians, 155–56, referring more fully to Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 353–62; deSilva, Readings, 115–16.

. Some suggest “rectify”; Martyn, Galatians, 250; Hays, “Galatians,” 237–38.

. Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 209.

. In ordinary Greek, it often means “justice”; see, e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Isoc. 15; Weed, “Aristotle on Justice.” For righteousness in some early Jewish sources, see, e.g., Przybylski, Righteousness, 13–76.

. Ziesler, Meaning of Righteousness.

. Schreiner, Galatians, 192; Das, Galatians, 244–45; see Moore, “Δικαιοσύνη.”

. Longenecker, Galatians, 85; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 88–89; Sanders, Paul, 505–11.

. Barclay, Gift, 375–76; cf. Hays, “Galatians,” 237.

. This was normally God’s own procedure (see 1 Kings 8:32; 2 Chron. 6:23); he was “justified,” i.e., shown right, vindicated, in his just judgments (Ps. 51:4, in Rom. 3:4).

. Gen. 38:26; cf. Job 33:32; Sir. 1:22; 23:11; 26:29; 31:5; of God in Sir. 18:2; used in a comparative sense in Jer. 3:11; Ezek. 16:51–52. Cf. 1QS 3.3; Gen. Rab. 65:6.

. See Exod. 23:7; Deut. 25:1; cf. Gen. 44:16; Isa. 43:9, 26; Ezek. 44:24.

. E.g., Gen. 38:26; 44:16; Ps. 82:3 (LXX 81:3); Isa. 43:9, 26; cf. Job 33:32; Sir. 10:29; 23:11; 26:29; 31:5.

. Cf. Schlatter, Romans, 20, 26–27, 133, 152; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 30–31, 185; Ortlund, “Justified,” 338–39.

. Cf. brief discussion in Keener, Romans, 59–61, 72–73.

. For OT (and some early Jewish) background to Paul’s justification doctrine, see Stuhlmacher, Justification, 13–24.

. One should “render justice in favor of” or “defend the rights of” (dikaioō) the needy (Isa. 1:17; Ps. 82:3 [LXX 81:3]).

. E.g., Pss. 31:1; 35:24; cf. 35:27–28; 50:6; 97:6 (with 97:2); 103:17–18. God’s righteousness establishes judgment for his servant also in 1QS 11.5–6.

. I include here any heeding the psalmist’s plea for deliverance without specification of justice: e.g., Pss. 5:8; 71:2, 15–16, 19, 24; 88:12; cf. Judg. 5:11; 1 Sam. 12:7. God’s righteousness parallels (or supplements) his faithfulness and/or covenant love in Pss. 36:5–6, 10; 40:10; 88:11–12; 98:2–3; 103:17; 111:3–4; 119:40–41; 141:1; 143:11–12; 145:7; his salvation in Ps. 71:15.

. Here the LXX construes the servant as the one vindicated. As in his omission of the pronoun μου (mou, “my”) from Hab. 2:4 (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11), Paul presumably knows that the Hebrew can be understood differently (or perhaps reckons the people acquitted in the servant, who has already carried out their suffering). Some trace the use of Isa. 53:11 back to Jesus (Riesner, “Rechtfertigung,” 212–14; cf. Cullmann, Christology, 64–65; Jeremias, Message, 45–46; Jeremias, Theology, 292–93; Page, “Authenticity”; discussion in Keener, Matthew, 487–88, 630–32).

. The following paragraphs condense material from Keener, Acts, 2:2087–88.

. Berger (“Gerechtigkeit Gottes”), noting its forensic sense and minimizing as exceptional texts referring to God’s mercy.

. 1QS 11.2–3, 5, 9–15; cf. 10.11; 1QHa 4.32; 12.38; 15.22; 19.34. God delivered Israel because of mercy rather than their righteous works (1QM 11.4; cf. Deut. 9:4–6 as in CD 8.14; 19.27; 4Q364 f26a.i.2; cf. Dan. 9:18). Some later rabbis also present God’s righteousness as his saving mercy (Gen. Rab. 33:1; Ruth Rab. proem 1; cf. “God of righteousness” in T. Jud. 22:2; righteousness as grace in b. Ḥag. 14a).

. 4 Ezra 8:35–36 (pointed out in Stuhlmacher, Justification, 14–16). Unless God pardoned the guilty, few mortals would survive (4 Ezra 7:139–40).

. See, e.g., Wright, Founder, 103 (arguing on 117–18 that it is covenant language); Stuhlmacher, Justification, 13–24; Haacker, Theology, 53–54; Stendahl, Paul, 31; Hunter, Romans, 29; Donaldson, Gentiles, 93–100. Because the language most often applied to God’s people, we should not import into the term the idea of becoming part of God’s people (apparently pace Wright, Founder, 119).

. Cf. Longenecker, Galatians, 85; Seifrid, “Paul, Luther, and Justification.”

. Here adapting Bultmann’s neologistic but sufficiently ambiguous “right-wise” (Bultmann, Theology, 1:253, 270).

. Fitzmyer, Romans, 118–19. On transformative righteousness in Augustine and Calvin but not Luther, see Barclay, Gift, 99–101, 124–27, 497.

. In Romans, cf. also Rom. 12:1–15:7; Schlatter, Romans, 26–27.

. Rightly, Westerholm, Justification, 68.

. Perhaps the point, if meant theologically rather than lexically, in Wright, Justification, 116, 121; cf. more lexical treatment on 164, 178.

. See esp. fully the discussion in Bird and Sprinkle, Faith of Jesus Christ.

. Cf. Lindsay, “Works of Law,” suggesting an attributive genitive or genitive of quality.

. E.g., Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 2; Barr, Semantics, 161–205; Betz, Galatians, 117–18 (forcefully); Hultgren, “Pistis Christou Formulation”; Hultgren, Romans, 623–61; Bruce, Galatians, 138–39; Hansen, Galatians, 69n; Stuhlmacher, Justification, 63–66; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 196–97, 380–85; Matlock, “Detheologizing”; Leyrer, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ”; Lee, “Against”; Mulemi, “Synopsis”; Fee, Galatians, 85–87; Garlington, “Partisan ἐκ”; Hunn, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ”; Hunn, “Habakkuk 2:4”; Hunn, “Galatians 5.5–6”; Hunn, “Fatherhood,” 501–5; Schreiner, Galatians, 163–66; deSilva, Readings, 120–28; deSilva, Galatians, 229–37; Moo, Galatians, 38–48; Sanders, Paul, 509–10; Barclay, Gift, 380.

. Noted, e.g., by Dunn, Galatians, 138; Koperski, Paul and Law, 118n20; Hultgren, Romans, 155; Thiselton, Discovering Romans, 104; Horton, Justification, chap. 10. As some of its detractors concede, e.g., Longenecker, Galatians, 87–88; Matera, Galatians, 94, 100.

. E.g., early sources noted in Hays, Faith, 158–62; Campbell, Rhetoric, 58–62; Haussleiter, Glaube; Kittel, “Πίστις”; Barth, Romans, 96; Torrance, “Aspect”; Taylor, “Function”; Howard, “Faith”; Barth, “Faith”; Hays, Faith, 157–76; Hays, “Poiēsis,” 213; Johnson, “Faith of Jesus”; Johnson, Romans, 60–64; Dunnill, “Whose Faith?”; Ramaroson, “Études”; Hooker, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ”; Talbert, Romans, 43–47, 109; Stubbs, “Soteriology”; Longenecker, Galatians, 87; Matera, Galatians, 94, 100; Donaldson, Gentiles, 116; Witherington, Grace, 179–82; Tonstad, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ”; Choi, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ”; Harrington, “Justification”; Wright, Justification, 117, 203; Hafemann, “Yaein,” 125; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 93. One could honor a patron for his faithfulness (see, e.g., the roughly mid-second-century inscription in Kent, Inscriptions, #265, lines 4–5 [p. 107]).

. Taylor (“Function”) suggests a fairly obscure testamentary sense of pistis.

. Morris, Romans, 175; cf. Hahn, Romans, 44–45.

. Grosseteste on Gal. 3:11 (Levy), noting that Jerome applies it to God’s faithfulness.

. Harrisville, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ”; Matlock, “Galatians 3.26” (on P46 on Gal. 3:26); Silva, “Galatians,” 790; Hultgren, Romans, 654. (These scholars cite, e.g., Origen, Comm. Rom. on Rom. 3:21–26; Apollinaris of Laodicea in Pauluskommentare (NTAbh 15:61); Gennadius of Constantinople; Chrysostom, Hom. Gal., on Gal. 3:26; Hom. Phil., on Phil. 3:9. Cf. perhaps also Ignatius, Magn. 1.1; noted also by detractors, e.g., Witherington, Grace, 182n36; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 92. The two exceptions listed are Ignatius, Eph. 20.1 (the subjective genitive fits the following “suffering and resurrection,” but πίστις in 20.2 might support the objective genitive) and a reference in Hippolytus. Supposed cases of the subjective genitive interpretation in some early translations (such as the Peshitta; Howard, “Faith,” 460, cited in Campbell, Rhetoric, 59) may represent simply a wooden rendering of πίστις Χριστοῦ rather than interpretation (as also in the KJV).

. DeSilva, Readings, 126; Barclay, Gift, 380, citing also Ephesians and James as early Pauline interpreters (following Matlock, “Demons Believe,” 306–7); Hultgren, Romans, 653–54, also citing Ephesians and James. Possibly the contrast between righteous behavior and unintelligent faith in Porphyry, Marc. 23.362, mocks distorted Christian teaching.

. McCormack, “Justification,” 173.

. See Silva, “Galatians,” 789; further, Silva, “Faith versus Works,” 227–34.

. See, e.g., Ramaroson, “Études”; Hooker, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ.”

. Dunnill, “Whose Faith?”

. Matlock, “Detheologizing”; Silva, “Galatians,” 789.

. Harrisville, “Before πίστις Χριστοῦ.”

. Barth, “Faith.” That Paul does this in every context where he uses πίστις Χριστοῦ would strengthen the argument, but the counterargument is that Paul disambiguates in every case.

. With, e.g., Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 133–34; Hultgren, Romans, 637–42; Sanders, Paul, 510; Barclay, Gift, 380.

. Matlock, “Rhetoric,” 193; Fee, Galatians, 85; Barclay, Gift, 380.

. Cf. Ellingworth, “Galatians 2.16.”

. De Boer, Galatians, 149.

. See, e.g., Howard, “Faith.”

. E.g., de Boer, Galatians, 149.

. Cf. also the similarly “double non-articular” pistis with the genitive in Mark 11:22, which few would render “have God’s faith(fulness)” (Fee, Galatians, 86); also Acts 3:16; probably Rev. 2:13; and esp. Rev. 14:12 (Moo, Galatians, 44).

. E.g., de Boer, Galatians, 192.

. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 381; Fee, Galatians, 86; Hultgren, Romans, 638.

. So, e.g., Fee, Galatians, 87.

. See also Dunn, Theology of Paul, 381–84.

. Cf. Vanhoye (“Πίστις Χριστοῦ”), who suggests a more plausible approach to the subjective genitive.

. Barclay, Gift, 477.

. Dunn, Galatians, 139; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 132–34; Hultgren, Romans, 643; Silva, “Galatians,” 789–90; Schreiner, Romans, 186 (esp. on Rom. 4:13–24).

. See also Eph. 1:12–13; cf. 1 Thess. 4:14; 1 Tim. 1:16; 3:16. The instance of Gal. 3:26 is very debatable; “in Christ Jesus” could refer to the object of faith (NASB, WEB; cf. Col. 1:4) or the location of believers (NIV, NRSV, ESV), but the context of Gal. 3:28 makes the latter meaning far likelier.

. See John 1:12; 2:11; 3:15–16, 18, 36; 4:21, 39; 5:38, 46–47; 6:29–30, 35–36, 40, 69; 7:5, 31, 38–39, 48; 8:30–31, 45–46; 9:35–36; 10:37–38, 42; 11:25–27, 45, 48; 12:11, 36, 37, 42, 44, 46; 13:19; 14:1, 11–12; 16:9, 27; 17:20–21; 20:31; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 14:23; 16:31; 18:8; 19:4; 22:19; 1 Pet. 1:8; 2:6; 1 John 3:23; 5:10, 13. For Jesus believing God, by contrast, see Heb. 12:2.

. Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 132; Hultgren, Romans, 643.

. Paul often uses abstract nouns in connection with their verb cognates; cf. Winger, “From Grace to Sin,” 157–60.

. Noted by others, e.g., Schreiner, Galatians, 193; Moo, Galatians, 217; Hunn, “Fatherhood,” 502–4.

. Oakes, Galatians, 89.

. Matlock, “Rhetoric,” 193–99; Fee, Galatians, 85; Hultgren, Romans, 639; Barclay, Gift, 380.

. Matlock, “Rhetoric,” 184–87; Barclay, Gift, 476–77.

. Normally the gospel is an object of faith, that in which one believes (Mark 1:15; Rom. 10:16), though it is also entrusted to its proclaimers (Gal. 2:7; 1 Thess. 2:4; 1 Tim. 1:11).

. For an objective genitive in Phil. 3:9, see Koperski, “Meaning”; Matlock, “Rhetoric,” 177–84.

. Cf. Fee, Galatians, 87; Garlington, “Partisan ἐκ.”

. See, e.g., Moo, Galatians, 217, affirming much of Hays’s reading of Gal. 3–4 except for his understanding of the term pistis.

. Cf. Morgan, Faith, 174–75, 209–11, 468, esp. 305. For faith as loyalty or allegiance, see, e.g., Josephus, Life 84; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 3.86, 88; Bates, Salvation by Allegiance, 77–100; in Latin fides, e.g., Tacitus, Dial. 10; deSilva, “Patronage,” 768. For faith’s relationship to trustworthiness in a Roman context, see Schiemann, “Fides,” 415; Büchli, “Fides,” 417; deSilva, Honor, 115–16.

. Sanders, Paul, 509, deciding in favor of the objective genitive.

. Sanders, Paul, 511.

. Martyn, Galatians, 251; cf. Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 92.

. McCormack, “Justification,” 172. Cf. similarly Barclay, Gift, 340: for Luther what makes “faith in Christ” central is Christ, faith’s only proper object. Faith “is, for Luther, not intellectual assent to propositions about God but trust that abandons itself utterly to God’s promises and benefits in Christ” (Barclay, Gift, 100). The Reformers generally interpret pistis as “trust” (fiducia) as opposed to the typical medieval understanding of “intellectual assent” (fides; see Chester, Paul, 155).

. De Boer, Galatians, 239. It is possible to treat Christ-faith as a transformative yet corporate “eschatological event” in the sense of the way of Christ-faith now revealed (Schliesser, “Christ-Faith,” 293–94).

. Rusam, “Πίστις.”

. See Vanhoye, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ.” For the connection between faith/faithfulness and reliability, cf. also Malina, “Faith/Faithfulness,” 72.

. Dunn, Beginning, 475.

. See O’Neill, “Spirit”; Fee, Galatians, 241; deSilva, Readings, 135; esp. Barclay, “Gift.”

. Without the Spirit, the letter by itself does not transform (Rom. 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:6); see Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 257–58. Medieval interpreter Robert of Melun (on Gal. 2:16) warned that the law restrains “only the hand . . . not the will” (trans. Levy, 210). Some thus construe law-works as simply legalism that violates the law’s spirit by thinking to obligate God (e.g., Fuller, “Works of the Law,” on Gal. 3:10–12; Fuller, Gospel, 95–103).

. Fuller, Gospel, 95, citing “work” from the law in Rom. 7:5, 8, 13.

. This caricature in Sanders, Paul, 630, may reflect Christians he has known, or may be reductio ad absurdum. Sanders finds some common ground with Luther in Paul, 457, and recognizes that some have inappropriately summarized theology in his name (557). Luther’s later anti-Judaism, of course, is indefensible.

. Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 5:12; his revised preface to Romans. Luther expected people to do good works once God changed them and made them righteous (Hafemann, “Yaein,” 120).

. Barclay, Gift, 103–4. For Luther, the claim to “do” the law was problematic because it depended on one’s own inadequate works; see Wengert, “Luther,” 109. But “without faith the works of the law are death and unrighteous” (Wengert, “Luther,” 101).

. Wengert, “Luther,” 101.

. Luther followed Augustine against Pelagius except on this point: Augustine spoke of believers eventually having merit, although this, like conversion to begin with, was wholly from grace (Barclay, Gift, 101).

. Calvin, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 5:6 (trans. Bray, 176). Note similarly Barclay’s citations (in Gift, 124) of Calvin, Inst. 3.6.1; 3.8.1; 3.16.1; Calvin, Comm. Rom., on Rom. 6:2. Cf. C. Spangenberg in Kolb, Luther and Word, 330; a similar understanding in Fuller, Gospel, 113.

. Gaston, “Works”; Owen, “Works.” Cf. Rom. 7:5, 8.

. Gathercole, Boasting, 92; Moo, Galatians, 158.

. Dunn, Galatians, 173.

. Martyn, Galatians, 262, also noting that the rivals probably believed that God enabled their righteousness, citing 1QHa 4:30–31; Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1.82.

. Evans, “Works of Law,” 201–26.

. Cf. Zahl, “Mistakes.”

. Barclay, Gift, 104; Hafemann, “Yaein,” 119.

. See Chester, Paul, 143.

. Ambrosiaster on Gal. 3:12, in Pollmann and Elliott, “Galatians,” 46–47.

. Haimo of Auxerre on Gal. 2:16 (Levy).

. Koehne, “Aquinas.”

. Matera, Galatians, 93; Barclay, Gift, 104, 121.

. WA 2:514.18–21 in Wengert, “Luther,” 101; AE 27:256–57 in Das, Galatians, 313n211; also Barclay, Gift, 340. Luther argued, against medieval tradition and especially some of his opponents, that sinners could not perform truly good works without a regenerate heart (Wengert, “Luther,” 100, citing WA 2:514.7). Gabriel Biel’s habit of love, as summarized in Wengert, “Luther,” 102, might correspond in some degree with Luther’s regeneration, but he rejected the lack of dependence on Christ (WA 2:516.9–10).

. Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 3.25–26 (Longenecker, Galatians, li; deSilva, Readings, 183).

. Augustine, Ep. Gal. 19 (1B.3.1; Edwards).

. Barclay, Gift, 104.

. E.g., Lambrecht, “Vloek en zegen”; Jewett, Romans, 266; Moo, Galatians, 27. Moo (Galatians, 24–25) recognizes Dunn’s agreement with justification by faith yet suggests that his approach does not explain this. Dunn would probably reply by distinguishing Paul’s setting from legitimate application of the principles that Paul articulated for that setting.

. E.g., Tyson, “Works,” 431; Matera, Galatians, ix, 30, 93, 99, 118; Dunn, Galatians, 135–36; Dunn, “Justice”; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 359–63; Hays, “Galatians,” 239; Fee, Galatians, 84; Bachmann, “Praktiken”; Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 479; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 325; George, Identity, 178.

. As noted even by those who at the time demurred, e.g., Matera, Galatians, 93 (albeit writing in 1992).

. E.g., Barclay, Obeying, 62–63; Longenecker, Galatians, 86; Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 327–30; Cranfield, “Works”; Lambrecht, “Vloek en zegen”; Hong, Law in Galatians, 134–35; Schreiner, “Works”; Moo, Romans, 208–9; Witherington, Grace, 177; Hagner, “Judaism,” 99–100; Martyn, Galatians, 262; Byrne, Romans, 120; Fitzmyer, Romans, 338; Fesko, “Works of Law”; Barrick, “New Perspective”; Gathercole, Boasting, 92–93, 238; Watson, Gentiles, 128; Matera, Romans, 86; de Boer, Galatians, 145–48; Lyons, Galatians, 149; Hafemann, “Yaein,” 122; Das, Galatians, 247–49; cf. early Protestants in Chester, Paul, 146.

. E.g., Juvenal, Sat. 14.96–106; cf. Strabo, Geogr. 14.37; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.137; J.W. 1.34; esp. pork in, e.g., Philo, Embassy 361; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.22.4 (cf. 1.11.12–13); Plutarch, Table Talk 4.4.4 (Mor. 669C); Juvenal, Sat. 6.160; cf. Josephus, Ant. 2.137; Leary, “Pork and Proselytes”; Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 73–80; Sevenster, Anti-Semitism, 136–39; Gager, Anti-Semitism, 57; cf. the “laziness” of Sabbath observance (Tacitus, Hist. 5.4).

. See Witherington, Grace, 366, citing Kline, Oath.

. Sanders, Paul, 513–14.

. Sanders, Paul, 481, 514, 631. Obviously, converts must avoid standard gentile sins—sexual immorality and idolatry (335, 339)—but Paul refused to require circumcision and other Jewish laws for gentiles.

. Sanders, Paul, 514. See comment on Gal. 5:3.

. See 4Q398 f14–17.ii.3; 4Q399 f1.i.11. Some see it as polemic against Sadducees (Atkinson, “4QMMT”) or the defiled temple (Regev, “Abominated Temple”), but instruction is a major focus (Fraade, “4QMMT”). For its epistolary dimension, see Høgenhaven, “Devices”; suggesting an analogy with Galatians as a halakic letter, Le Cornu, Galatians, lxx–lxxiii, 2; but see also the qualifications in Grossman, “4QMMT.”

. Cf. Ps. 106:30–31. Dunn (Beginning, 477) connects it esp. with Gen. 15:6, as in Gal. 3:6; see also Donfried, Thessalonica, 291. Because the Qumran scrolls elsewhere teach grace, Abegg (“Works”; “4QMMT C 27, 31”; “4QMMT,” 710; “James,” 72–74) suggests that they refer here to maintaining membership in the covenant as opposed to entering it. Cairus (“Works-Righteousness”) appeals to 4QMMT and Josephus (Ant. 1.183) to support a stream of early Judaism that believed in justification by works.

. 4QMMT C 26–27, 31 (4Q398 f14–17.ii.3) (Wise, Abegg, and Cook, Scrolls, 364). See further 1QS 6.18; 4Q265 f4.ii.6 (reconstructed); 4Q399 f1.i.11 (reconstructed). This document might date from just a generation before Paul; see Knohl, “Dating.”

. Dunn, “4QMMT”; cf. Evans, “Works of Law.” Noting the connection, Donfried (Thessalonica, 288) suggests that Paul’s opponents reflected this sort of Judaism rather than Pharisaism (though the document shows a hermeneutic similar to those of some rabbinic circles; Yadin, “4QMMT”). Cf. Lee, “Look” (legalism not generally but in 4QMMT and Galatia). Some scholars have been overzealous with parallels (e.g., Bachmann, “4QMMT”).

. See discussion in Fraade, “Rhetoric.”

. Dunn, “Justice”; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 357–58; Dunn, Beginning, 476. Cf. also Bachmann, “Paulusperspektive”; Jewett, Romans, 266; Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 353, 479, 551.

. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 359–60.

. E.g., 1QS 5.21; 11.16; 4Q261 f1.ab.3; 4Q394 f3–7.i.5. See also Waters, Justification, 158 (cf. 96–117); Witherington, Grace, 176–77, citing also 2 Bar. 57:2; and rabbinic idiom regarding obeying the law of Moses (following here Moo, “Works of the Law,” 91); Maston and Sherwood, “4QMMT,” 56–57.

. See 1QS 6.18 (works in the law); 4Q265 f4ii.6. So, e.g., Schreiner, Romans, 173; Gathercole, Boasting, 94, 104; Das, Galatians, 249.

. Schreiner, Galatians, 161.

. Cf. Gathercole, Boasting, 92–93, 238; Watson, Gentiles, 19, 128, 212; Kruse, Romans, 18–19, following Flusser, “Gesetz,” 34; Räisänen, Paul and Law, 177; Schreiner, “Works,” 232–44.

. Schreiner, Galatians, 161n39. Cf. Kruse (Romans, 19), who notes Paul’s critique of ethnic exclusivism, though he finds law-works to be a more central issue.

. Silva, “Galatians,” 790.

. Cf. Dunn, “4QMMT,” as cited in Hays, “Galatians,” 239; Dunn, New Perspective, 23–28. For an appreciative summary of Dunn’s and Wright’s clarifications, see also Kruse, Romans, 21. Watson (Gentiles, 19, 212) suggests that Paul envisions here the law’s Jewish particularity but not specific boundary markers.

. Dunn, Beginning, 475n264.

. Dunn, Beginning, 476.

. See Dunn, Galatians, 135–36, specifying the boundary markers “particularly” without denying the broader sense.

. As nearly all commentators note, e.g., Ridderbos, Epistle, 100; Betz, Galatians, 118; Dunn, Galatians, 140; deSilva, Readings, 114, 129; Oakes, Galatians, 81.

. Hays (“Galatians,” 241) notes the doubled appeal to God’s righteousness in Ps. 143:1, 11 (LXX 142:1, 11); also Hays, “Psalm 143,” 114–15.

. See Hermogenes, Method 30.447; Stanley, Language of Scripture, 290–91, 305–6, 322–23, 334–37.

. Silva (“Galatians,” 790) notes that the psalm’s πᾶς ζῶν (pas zōn, “anyone living”) is rare, but Paul’s πᾶσα σάρξ (pasa sarx) appears more than twenty times in the LXX. Still, a hint at circumcision (Gal. 6:12–13) may provide an additional incentive to employ this phrase (Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 95–96).

. The main difference in Rom. 3:20 is the preservation of the psalmist’s “before” God.

. 1 Kings 8:46; 2 Chron. 6:36; 1 Esd. 4:37; Jub. 21:21; 1QS 11.9–10. See further Moore, Judaism, 1:467–68; Bonsirven, Judaism, 114; Sandmel, Judaism, 187; Flusser, Judaism, 62.

. E.g., Euripides, Hipp. 615; Rhet. Alex. 4.1427a.37–40; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.12.19; cf. most people in Diogenes Laertius, Lives 1.88; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 18.82; 31.203; Ep. 17.2–3; though some were praised as blameless overall (Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 1.12.3; 2.1.1–2; 2.35.2), and some thought human nature intrinsically good (e.g., Musonius Rufus, Lect. 2, p. 36.16–17).

. Pr. Man. 8 (also cited in Fuller, Gospel, 92); T. Ab. 10:13 A (contrast T. Ab. 9:2–3 A). Das (Galatians, 314) notes the “perfection” of Abraham (Jub. 23:10; cf. 15:3) and other patriarchs (Jub. 27:17; 36:23; 40:8), but in the OT such descriptions did not mean that the person never acted contrary to God’s purposes (Deut. 18:13, MT and LXX; compare Gen. 6:9 with 9:21). Tg. Ruth to 4:22 attributes sinlessness to Jesse.

. Some rabbis debated whether Moses sinned (b. Šabb. 55b). Das (Galatians, 314) notes that Philo regarded Noah’s biblical perfection as relative only to his contemporaries (Abraham 36–39; cf. 34, 48; Unchangeable 117, 122, 140), thereby underlining more clearly Moses’s sinlessness (Moses 1.162; 2.1, 8–11; Alleg. Interp. 3.134, 140; Drunkenness 94; Sacrifices 8). 4 Ezra 7:138–40 (68–70) allows only a few exceptions; so also Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interp. Rom. on Rom. 5:19.

. Cf. Barclay, Gift, 378n72.

. Like gentiles (2:15).

. E.g., Musonius Rufus, Lect. 4, p. 46.13; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 50.9; 55; 61; 77–78; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.1.23; cf. Mek. Pisha 1.35; y. Sanh. 6:1, §1. This is good oratorical style in general (e.g., Cicero, Or. Brut. 40.137; Tusc. 3.23.55; Quintilian, Decl. 377.4; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 1.1). Like obvious quotations (e.g., Virgil, Aen. 2.12, in Pliny Y., Ep. 6.20.1), interlocutors (or hypothetical objections) could be unmarked; see, e.g., Seneca Y., Dial. 3.6.1; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 31.12; Pliny Y., Ep. 1.20.20; 7.17.5; Quintilian, Decl. 247.11–14.

. This verse is not, then, merely the claim of an imaginary interlocutor to be refuted in v. 18 (as suggested in Bouwman, “Christus”).

. Cf. Barth, Justification, 40; Schreiner, Galatians, 168; Witherington, Grace, 186; esp. Das, Galatians, 259–62, noting (on 259) that Paul always uses the Greek phrase rendered as “Certainly not!” (my No way!) to reject false conclusions that follow true premises. In conventional understanding of Greek grammar, a first-class conditional sentence normally assumes the truth of the protasis, but in this case it is true only from the standpoint of the critics (who charged with sin those Jewish Christians who ate with gentiles). Cf. Longenecker (Galatians, 89), who affirms this point yet regards the concession of sin as also true since even Christians sin.

. With, e.g., Fee, Galatians, 88.

. Cf. Dunn, Galatians, 141; Sanders, Paul, 515; cf. Matera, Galatians, 102; Hansen, Galatians, 71. As Soards and Pursiful (Galatians, 97) recognize, however, this could represent Paul’s rhetorical construction rather than an actual accusation.

. The idea of Christ as an agent, servant, or facilitator of sin uses the Greek term διάκονος (diakonos). Dunn (Galatians, 141) suggests that the term, which can refer to one who waits on tables, fits the meal setting and might evoke Jesus’s words in Mark 10:42–45; Luke 22:27. The term has a much wider range of meaning, however; see, e.g., Rom. 13:4.

. With, e.g., Garnet, “Light,” 28; Matera, Galatians, 102; Fee, Galatians, 88–89; de Boer, Galatians, 157; Barclay, Gift, 372; Sanders, Paul, 515.

. For the phrase in diatribe, see, e.g., Epictetus, Diatr. 1.5.10; 1.8.15; 1.10.7; 1.11.24; 1.19.7; 1.26.6; 1.28.24; 1.29.9; 2.8.2; 3.1.42; for its LXX function, cf. Lightfoot, Galatians, 117. Paul normally uses it after a rhetorical question (with Witherington, Grace, 186) and to deny absurd and typically virtually blasphemous conclusions. For emotional interjections in rhetoric, see Anderson, Glossary, 41; as exclamatio, see Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 582.

. See Malherbe, “ΜΗ ΓΕΝΟΙΤΟ”; Malherbe, Philosophers, 25–30. Although the particular expression is esp. characteristic of Paul and Epictetus (Malherbe, Philosophers, 25; but see Demosthenes, Aristog. 1.30), note similar expressions in Plato, Charm. 175A; Alcib. I 128D; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 55.3; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.12.15; in Latin, Cicero, Rosc. Amer. 1.2; Seneca Y., Lucil. 66.41; 94.32.

. Barclay, Gift, 384; cf. Barclay, Obeying, 79.

. Fee, Galatians, 89.

. Emphasizing the universal paradigmatic function, cf. Martyn, Galatians, 258; emphasizing the death of Paul the persecutor, cf. de Boer, Galatians, 161; Dunn, Galatians, 145–46.

. Cf. softening techniques in rhetoric, such as preparing for (e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 38.5–7; Rowe, “Style,” 142) or concluding (e.g., Hermogenes, Inv. 4.12.203–4) a shocking statement. McKnight (“Ego”) sees Paul’s “I” here as the representative Jewish believer.

. Cf. Dunn, Galatians, 142, for texts about Israel “marked off from the other nations by a wall” (Let. Aris. 139; Eph. 2:14).

. m. ʾAbot 1:1; 3:14; Sipre Deut. 48.1.5; ʾAbot R. Nat. 2; 3A; the principle in m. Ber. 1:1; m. Sanh. 11:4.

. See BDAG, definition 3a; cf. Matt. 5:17. Athens applied the cognate noun to dissolving the constitution in an act of treason (Thür, “Katalysis”). NT references to destroying the temple (cf. Mark 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Acts 6:14) also contrast with “building up,” though there is no specific allusion to the temple here.

. Cf. Fee, Galatians, 90; Barclay, Gift, 385n95. Garnet (“Light,” 28) reads this text instead as Paul once destroying Christianity but now building it up, but this interpretation renders “again” superfluous, since Paul had not built it before his conversion. Cf. Taylor, “Transgression.”

. For datives of respect here, see Das, Galatians, 267.

. De Boer, Galatians, 159, noting “in me”; the law or traditions; God’s Son and God’s grace.

. Cf. Cousar, Galatians, 60.

. Marius Victorinus (Ep. Gal. 1.2.19, on Gal. 2:19) believes that Paul died to either the old law or the law understood carnally. Not the Torah itself but rather its demand on believers’ lives ceases (Barclay, Gift, 385); Paul is not dead to Scripture (Gaventa, “Singularity,” 198).

. Some relate this to Christ redeeming believers from the law’s curse (Matera, Galatians, 103; Witherington, Grace, 189). Some suggest that the law brought about Christ’s death (Bruce, Galatians, 143; Martyn, Galatians, 257; Hays, “Galatians,” 243, tentatively; Fee, Galatians, 91). But against some, Paul did not discover the law’s curse to be false, just no longer appropriately applicable.

. The law teaches the gospel (Rom. 3:31 with Rom. 4), thus Paul’s appeal to Abraham in Gal. 3:6–14. So in Gal. 4:21–31 (“Do you not heed the law?” in 4:21). Paul will argue on the basis of the law itself, and that law itself points to the new way in Christ. Cf. Willitts, “Paul.”

. Cf. Burton, Galatians, 135; Garnet, “Light,” 29. For other views, see Martyn, Galatians, 257n142, noting three major lines of interpretation, including his own. Dunn (Galatians, 143) and de Boer (Galatians, 160–61) relate it to Paul’s preconversion persecution out of zeal for the law; but this was Paul’s misappropriation of the law, not the law itself.

. Cited also by Dunn, Galatians, 144; Hays, “Galatians,” 243. The specific date of 4 Maccabees is debated, often being assigned to ca. 40 CE or even as late as the second century CE (Mack and Murphy, “Wisdom Literature,” 398). Rost (Judaism, 110) suggests the first half of the first century. Paul and 4 Maccabees are likely independent but may reflect more common Hellenistic Jewish language, of which they provide some of our limited samples.

. Cf. discussion of union with Christ here in Adewuya, Holiness, 89–90.

. With, e.g., Dunn, Galatians, 143; Martyn, Galatians, 257n142; Wright, Justification, 120; de Boer, Galatians, 160–61.

. Cf. Gaventa, “Singularity,” 193 (differing from de Boer, Galatians, 160).

. Cf. Longenecker, Galatians, 92: “The ‘I’ here is the ‘flesh’ (σάρξ) of 5:13–24.”

. Cf. Lopez, Apostle, 139.

. Burton, Galatians, 298 (on Gal. 5:25); Dunn, Baptism, 107; Fee, Presence, 374–75. Burton (Galatians, 135) speaks of participation in benefits that Christ won (Rom. 4:24–25; 2 Cor. 5:15), of “a spiritual fellowship with him in respect to these experiences” (Phil. 3:10), and of passing through experiences analogous to those of Jesus (Rom. 8:17).

. Pace Betz, Galatians, 124, here. Instead, in Paul’s midrash, the Spirit today corresponds to “the LORD” in Exodus; see Bruce, Apostle, 120–21; Hays, Echoes, 143; Matera, II Corinthians, 96; Keener, Mind, 213; Oropeza, Second Corinthians, 245; esp. Belleville, Glory, 256–72; Thrall, Corinthians, 278–81; cf. also Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Comm. 2 Cor. 305–6.

. Gal. 2:20; 5:16–25; 6:14–15; Rom. 6:3–11; 8:2–14; 15:18; 1 Cor. 6:15–19; 12:11–13; 2 Cor. 5:17; 12:9; 13:3–4; Phil. 2:13; Col. 2:10–13, 20; 3:1–5; 2 Tim. 2:11; probably Philem. 6; cf. John 14:16–23; 16:12–15.

. Anderson, Glossary, 90–91; Rowe, “Style,” 143; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 582. Paul elsewhere uses a similar “not I, but” (here no longer I . . . but) construction to emphasize God’s grace (1 Cor. 15:10) or superiority (1 Cor. 7:10); cf. Fronto, Ant. imp. 2.2. A “not . . . but” construction (e.g., 2 Cor. 7:12) is of course even more common.

. Cf. Wikenhauser, Mysticism, 126. Fee (Galatians, 92) notes the chiastic arrangement in Greek: “I live in flesh, in faith I live.”

. Tannehill, Dying and Rising, 59.

. Neil, Galatians, 46, noting that this new life in Paul was not of his own making; cf. also Lyons, Galatians, 67, 163.

. E.g., Wikenhauser, Mysticism, 40–48, 65–80 (but recognizing an objective element, 110–11, esp. in sacramental terms); du Toit, “In Christ”; Ejenobo, “Element.” In contrast to Buddhist mysticism, the self is transformed rather than obliterated; see Barth, “Glaube.”

. Davies, Paul, 91; Ridderbos, Paul, 232.

. Reitzenstein, Mystery-Religions, 471.

. See Davies, Paul, 91.

. As one might think reading, e.g., Ladd, Theology, 485; cf. Richardson, Theology, 251; Shauf, “Galatians 2.20.” Ladd is right in what he affirms yet wrong in what he denies.

. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 147, 155.

. Sanders, Paul and Judaism, 522; Sanders, Paul, 723.

. Sanders, Paul and Judaism, 522–23; Sanders, Paul, 724–25, recommending attempts to articulate this in works such as Hays, “Participation.” Hays (“Poiēsis,” 215) also recommends Sanders’s participatory approach to Galatians. For some Orthodox responses to questions such as participation and justification, see Despotis, Participation.

. Origen, Princ. 4.4.29 (going beyond the text in adding Christ being in angels; cf. perhaps the divine spirit animating angels in Ezek. 1:20 LXX, though the Hebrew may refer to their own spirits).

. Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 3.27 (Edwards).

. Haimo of Auxerre on Gal. 2:20 (Levy).

. Bruno the Carthusian on Gal. 2:20 (Levy).

. Lombard, Galatians, on Gal. 2:20 (Levy).

. Desiderius Erasmus, Paraphrases, on Gal. 2:20 (Bray).

. Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 2:20 (Bray). The law was meant only for “his old self, which had died.” Luther’s approach apparently was, contrary to some scholastic views, participationist, even when he was reading pistis Christou as an objective genitive (Chester, “Justification”; Chester, Paul, 252, 421). See also the summary of Reformers’ views on Gal. 2:15–21 in Bray, Galatians, 70. Melanchthon emphasized the forensic side, and Osiander saw Luther’s position as solely a matter of union, but Luther taught both (Steinmetz, “Osiander,” 53).

. Calvin, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 2:20 (Bray, pp. 80–81), balancing forensic and experiential. On union with Christ in Calvin, see Chester, Paul, 265–318.

. On which, see, e.g., Jenkins, Next Christendom; Jenkins, New Faces; Johnson and Ross, Atlas; Anderson et al., Studying; Anderson, Ends of the Earth.

. See Keener, Mind, 128–32, 197–98.

. See Keener, Mind, 154, 156, 206, 210–12, 215. See Gorman, Cruciformity; Gorman, Cruciform God; Gorman, Becoming the Gospel; Wright, Faithfulness, 781, 1021–22; Hays, “Poiēsis,” 215n31.

. Cf. Fee, Galatians, 92: here in Gal. 2:20 Paul “lets us in on his personal life of devotion.”

. Helpful here is du Toit, “In Christ.”

. See Barclay, Gift, 441–42; Das, Galatians, 270. Compare and contrast the understanding of self in Stoic thought; cf. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 53–55; Reydams-Schils, “Authority.”

. Cf. different levels of causation in Aristotle (e.g., in Deacon, “Emergence,” 113). For example, a conventional book could include various complementary causes, such as a writer’s mind, brain, muscles, pen, ink, ink producer, editors, publisher, printing press, the goal of readership, and so on. Various analogies highlight the limits of our usual thinking, such as theoretically multiple dimensions in analytic geometry; lower-level properties supervening on higher ones; or, perhaps more helpfully, higher levels of complexity organizing lower ones.

. E.g., Musonius Rufus, Lect. frg. 53, p. 144.24–25; later, Philostratus, Her. 4.10; 5.1; 7.1, 3; 9.7.

. See Fronto, M. Caes. 2.1.1.

. E.g., Cicero, Leg. 1.22.58–59; Seneca Y., Lucil. 41.1–2; 73.16; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.14.13–14; 2.8.10–11, 14; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 2.13, 17; 3.5–6, 12; 3.16.2; 5.10.2; Apuleius, God Socr. 157; cf. Wis. 7:27; Philo, Cherubim 98, 100; Dreams 1.149; Moses 1.277. Also the indwelling of reason (logos), e.g., in Musonius Rufus, Lect. frg. 36, p. 134.11; for the law, 4 Ezra 9:31, 33, 36. For more relevant parallels in Philo, see Sellin, “Christus-mystik.”

. An exception might possibly be Socrates’s δαίμων (daimōn), on which see, e.g., Xenophon, Mem. 1.1.2 (meaning the deity that directed him, 1.4.2, 10, 13; 4.8.1, 5–6); Plutarch, Alc. 17.4; Sign Soc. 10 (Mor. 580C); Socrates, Ep. 1; discussion in, e.g., Kleve, “Daimon”; Brickhouse and Smith, “Sign.”

. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 31.58; P.Oxy. 3.528.5–6; also (in Griffiths, “Isis”) 1380.109–10; sometimes a specially favored person, as in Plutarch, Lyc. 5.3.

. E.g., Burkert, Religion, 74–75; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 118, 147–48.

. Apuleius, God Socr. 146–47. Personal devotion to deities became common in fourth-century savior cults and Neoplatonism (Hart, Delusions, 188). For love more generally in Platonic thought, see Gould, Love, esp. 80–162.

. So also Dunn, Galatians, 147; Das, Galatians, 273; see further sources in Keener, John, 1:414, 568–69.

. E.g., Deut. 7:7, 13; 10:15; 23:5; 33:3; Isa. 43:4; 63:9; Hosea 11:1; Tob. 13:10 (in some MSS); Bar. 3:36; CD 8.17; Jub. 31:15, 20; Pss. Sol. 9:8; 4 Ezra 5:27; Rom. 11:28; Sipre Deut. 24.3.1; 344.1.1; 344.3.1; 344.5.1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 36, §94B. Cf. Fensham, “Love,” 74–75.

. E.g., Sir. 45:1; 46:13; Philo, Abraham 50; T. Ab. 7:1; 8:11 A; T. Jos. 1:2; 3 En. 1:8.

. E.g., Wis. 4:10; 7:28; Pss. Sol. 13:9; T. Jos. 11:1.

. Sipre Deut. 97.2.

. Sib. Or. 1.72.

. Hurtado, “Messianic Christology,” 115–16.

. Jesus’s divine love also appears at least implicitly in Q Matt. 23:37 // Luke 13:34; see Keener, Historical Jesus, 236–37, 269.

. Jesus handing himself over to death is connected to and reveals the love already mentioned in Gal. 2:20; see Rom. 5:8; 8:32, 34–35, 39; John 3:16; 1 John 4:9–11; Diogn. 10.2; cf. de Boer, Galatians, 163. The closest but very limited analogy is some Jewish traditions that emphasize God suffering in his people’s suffering, for which cf. Judg. 10:16; Isa. 63:9; Hosea 11:8; Cohen, “Shekhinta.”

. With Gathercole, Substitution, 25. For the idea in Paul’s Jewish milieu of righteous sufferers atoning, see, e.g., 2 Macc. 7:37; 4 Macc. 6:27–29; 9:24; 17:21–22; cf. Mek. Pisha 1.105–13; Büchler, Atonement, 178. For ancient ideas of atonement, see further, e.g., Hengel, Atonement; Kim, “Hellenistic Thought”; Kim, “Atonement”; Thoma, “Frühjüdische Martyrer.”

. Barclay, Gift, 387.

. Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 2.20 (Edwards).

. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, on Gal. 2:20 (Childress).

. Some read this as a subjective genitive: Christ’s faithfulness (de Boer, Galatians, 150); but most see it as objective (Hultgren, “Pistis Christou Formulation”; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 133).

. As in Augustine, Cont. 18 (Edwards), both one’s spirit and one’s flesh are good, provided the former rules and the latter obeys. Erasmus Sarcerius (Ann. Gal., on Gal. 2:20 [Bray]) contrasts life according to the flesh, following its desires, with life in the flesh, as here, “a normal life in the body.” For the semantic range of flesh, see Keener, Mind, 101–3.

. DeSilva, Readings, 133.

. Oakes (Galatians, 94) suggests that in Gal. 2:20 Paul replaces self-reliance with reliance on Christ. Ancient Israelite devotion also valued radical dependence on God; cf. God as the strength of one’s life (Pss. 18:1; 27:1; 28:7–8; 31:2, 4; 37:39; 73:26; 118:14; 138:3; 140:7).

. Cf. Ridderbos, Paul, 232.

. See discussion in Keener, Mind, 44–49.

. Someone dying for whose sake another had given his life (as in Suetonius, Aug. 13.2) appears unspeakably tragic.

. See Marshall, Enmity, 13–21, 245–46; also, e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 40.16, 23; Pliny Y., Ep. 6.28.2; 8.6.9; Fronto, Ep. graec. 4.2; Mendels, “Rejection.”

. DeSilva, Honor, 145–46. On the need for reciprocity for gifts, see, e.g., Pliny Y., Ep. 6.6.3; Fronto, Ep. graec. 4.3; 5.8; Statius, Silv. 4.9; Libanius, Anec. 1.20; Symmachus, Ep. 1.104; Herman, “Gift”; Highet, “Reciprocity”; Harrison, Grace, 1, 15, 50–53, 196, 348, esp. here 40–43.

. Barclay, Gift, 400.

. Since the protasis in a first-class conditional sentence is assumed true, Longenecker (Galatians, 95) contends that Paul must be, as in 2:18, “paraphrasing his opponents’ theology,” indicating their belief that righteousness did come by the law. Yet one wonders whether this grammatical pattern inflexibly holds. In any case, it is clear that Paul regards it as false (Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 104).

. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 20, 1433b.29–1434a.17; 22, 1434b.8–11; 36, 1443b.15–16; 36, 1444b.21–35; Cicero, Fin. 3.9.31; Quinct. 28.85–29.90; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 3, p. 42.23–29; Quintilian, Decl. 249.14; cf. Rowe, “Style,” 148; Anderson, Glossary, 85; Harvey, Listening, 77.

. Rightly Schreiner, Galatians, 173; Oakes, Galatians, 26 (viewing it as a closing maxim; on closing maxims, see Anderson, Glossary, 55). Buscemi (Lettera, 77) treats 2:21 as the epilogos, summing up the narratio’s essential content.

↑ Back to top