728x90
11 But ewhen Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him fto his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, ghe was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing hthe circumcision party.1 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their iconduct was not in step with jthe truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas kbefore them all, “If you, though a Jew, llive like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 갈 2:11–14.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 갈 2:11–14.
11-13절) 그러나 게바가 안디옥에 왔을때 그가 책망받을 위치에 있었기 때문에 내가 그의 면전에서 그를 반대하였다. 왜냐하면 야고보로부터 온 어떤 사람들이 이르기 전에 게바가 이방인들과 먹고 있었는데 그들이 도착했을때 게바가 할례당을 두려워하여 물러나 스스로를 분리시켰다. 그리하여 남은 유대인들이 게바와 같이 외식하였고 바나바 조차도 그들의 외식으로 인해 어찌할 바를 몰라했다.
안디옥은 로마 제국의 3번째 큰 도시로 50만의 인구가 있었다. 로마 시리아 지역의 수도로 매우 중요한 정치적 요충지였다. 이곳에 신약시대 65,000명 정도의 유대인들이 거주했다. 안디옥은 팔레스틴 외곽으로 복음이 확장되는 베이스의 역할을 했다. 예루살렘에 대한 핍박으로 흩어진 유대인들이 안디옥으로 와서 이방인을 향한 복음의 전초기지가 되었고 이를 돕기 위해서 예루살렘 교회는 바나바를 안디옥으로 파송한다.(행 11:24) 바나바는 이에 바울을 초청해서 이에 동참시킨다.
바울 이전에 이미 복음은 이방인들에게도 증거된다. 베드로에 의해서(행 10장)
예루살렘은 성전의 존재, 강력한 바리새인들과 열심당의 영향, 토라중심의 유대주의등으로 유대 기독교의 진앙지역할을 했다. 반면에 안디옥은 지리적, 정치적으로 동과 서가 만나는 지역으로 다양한 인종과 문화가 만나는 용광로와 같은 장소였다. 우리는 이 안디옥 교회의 사건들을 보면서 예수와 문화, 기독교와 문화에 대한 주제를 고민해 볼 수 있다.
- The Jewish community formed a significant segment of the city’s population, numbering some sixty-five thousand during the New Testament era. The Jews at Antioch were generally tolerated by the Roman overlords but were occasionally harassed and persecuted there as in other large cities throughout the empire. Less than ten years before the clash between Peter and Paul, the emperor Caligula (a.d. 37–41) had instigated a virulent attack against the Jews of Antioch. During this crisis many Jews were killed and their synagogues burned. The same kind of harassment was being carried out in Palestine as well and may account for the overly zealous attitude of many Jewish Christians there concerning issues of circumcision, food laws, and adherence to worship in the temple.
Not surprisingly, Antioch became the home base for the first major expansion of Christianity outside of Palestine. Acts tells us that the fires of persecution ignited against the first believers in Jerusalem had the effect of multiplying rather than squelching their witness. “They that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4, KJV). Some of these “missionaries by necessity” came to Antioch, where they witnessed first to the Jews but then also to the Gentiles of that city, winning many of both groups to faith in Christ. When the church in Jerusalem got wind of the spiritual awakening in Antioch, they sent Barnabas, “a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith” (Acts 11:24), to assist the new believers there. Barnabas in turn traveled to Tarsus where he recruited Paul, whom he had earlier introduced to the Jerusalem church leaders, to join him in the work of the ministry at Antioch. Thus Barnabas was a kind of personal go-between reaching out to Paul and the Gentile believers on the one hand and to Peter, James, and the Jerusalem church on the other. This fact may explain, although not justify, his disappointing defection from Paul during the height of the Antioch incident.
Before analyzing the events that provoked the incident between Peter and Paul, it will be helpful to identify several features of early Antiochene Christianity during this time. The first point to be made is that we are dealing with an event that occurred early in the history of the church. True, the gospel had already broken through to the Gentiles, and Peter himself had played a crucial role in this development (cf. Acts 10). However, the full implications of how Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity could together form a spiritual symbiosis was yet to be realized. Not even Paul’s agreement with the pillar apostles over respective missionary strategies for reaching Jews and Gentiles contemplated all of the difficult and dynamic possibilities of Jewish and Gentile believers living and worshiping together in a mixed congregation. The incident at Antioch was thus a necessary if painful stage in the development of a mature New Testament ecclesiology.
Furthermore, the church at Antioch existed in a missionary situation that called for a different contextual response from the one dictated by the Judean environment. Jerusalem was the epicenter for a kind of Jewish Christianity that was decisively shaped by the presence of the temple, strong Pharisaic and Zealot influences, and a Torah-centered interpretation of Christianity. Antioch, on the other hand, was far to the north of Jerusalem; it stood at the geographical and political crossroads of East and West, a veritable melting pot of diverse civilizations and cultures. Looking back from the distance of two millennia, we can see now that the controversy at Antioch was more than a clash between two apostles; it was a collision between two ways of being Christian. Thus it raises for us the ever-pressing question of the tension between Christ and culture.
Finally, it is not coincidental that believers in Jesus were first called Christians at Antioch. The designation of Palestinian believers as followers of “the Way” evidently was not transferred to the residents of Antioch who came to believe in Jesus as Messiah. Obviously a new reality had come into being with this new called-out company of Jews and Gentiles whose identity and self-definition centered neither in their Jewishness nor their Gentile character but rather in their common devotion to the one in whose name they shared a common meal. Thus they were called Christianoi, “the folks of Christ,” originally perhaps a term of derogation that soon came to be owned with pride by believers everywhere because it was so evidently appropriate.
Without idealizing the early Antiochene church—the fact that its fellowship could be so easily disrupted is a sure sign that it was far from perfect—we can say that part of what was at stake in the quarrel over table fellowship was nothing less than the unity and indivisibility of the body of Christ. What does it mean when the people of God, redeemed by the blood of Christ and sealed by the Holy Spirit, cannot share together a common loaf at a single table? In looking at what led to the conflict, let us consider the issue of table fellowship, Peter’s open-table practice, and his capitulation to pressure.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 170–172.
Before analyzing the events that provoked the incident between Peter and Paul, it will be helpful to identify several features of early Antiochene Christianity during this time. The first point to be made is that we are dealing with an event that occurred early in the history of the church. True, the gospel had already broken through to the Gentiles, and Peter himself had played a crucial role in this development (cf. Acts 10). However, the full implications of how Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity could together form a spiritual symbiosis was yet to be realized. Not even Paul’s agreement with the pillar apostles over respective missionary strategies for reaching Jews and Gentiles contemplated all of the difficult and dynamic possibilities of Jewish and Gentile believers living and worshiping together in a mixed congregation. The incident at Antioch was thus a necessary if painful stage in the development of a mature New Testament ecclesiology.
Furthermore, the church at Antioch existed in a missionary situation that called for a different contextual response from the one dictated by the Judean environment. Jerusalem was the epicenter for a kind of Jewish Christianity that was decisively shaped by the presence of the temple, strong Pharisaic and Zealot influences, and a Torah-centered interpretation of Christianity. Antioch, on the other hand, was far to the north of Jerusalem; it stood at the geographical and political crossroads of East and West, a veritable melting pot of diverse civilizations and cultures. Looking back from the distance of two millennia, we can see now that the controversy at Antioch was more than a clash between two apostles; it was a collision between two ways of being Christian. Thus it raises for us the ever-pressing question of the tension between Christ and culture.
Finally, it is not coincidental that believers in Jesus were first called Christians at Antioch. The designation of Palestinian believers as followers of “the Way” evidently was not transferred to the residents of Antioch who came to believe in Jesus as Messiah. Obviously a new reality had come into being with this new called-out company of Jews and Gentiles whose identity and self-definition centered neither in their Jewishness nor their Gentile character but rather in their common devotion to the one in whose name they shared a common meal. Thus they were called Christianoi, “the folks of Christ,” originally perhaps a term of derogation that soon came to be owned with pride by believers everywhere because it was so evidently appropriate.
Without idealizing the early Antiochene church—the fact that its fellowship could be so easily disrupted is a sure sign that it was far from perfect—we can say that part of what was at stake in the quarrel over table fellowship was nothing less than the unity and indivisibility of the body of Christ. What does it mean when the people of God, redeemed by the blood of Christ and sealed by the Holy Spirit, cannot share together a common loaf at a single table? In looking at what led to the conflict, let us consider the issue of table fellowship, Peter’s open-table practice, and his capitulation to pressure.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 170–172.
유대인들의 식탁 교제
- In the fast-food culture of modern Western civilization, it is difficult to appreciate the religious significance ancient peoples associated with the simple act of eating. This was especially characteristic of Judaism, as Jeremias observed: “In Judaism table-fellowship means fellowship before God, for the eating of a piece of broken bread by everyone who shares in the meal brings out the fact that they all have a share in the blessing which the master of the house has spoken over the unbroken bread.”141
141 J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (London: SCM, 1971), 115, quoted in J. D. G. Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11–18),” JSNT 18 (1983): 12. I am indebted to Dunn for his thorough elucidation of the Antioch episode even if I cannot follow his conclusions at every point. For two important rejoinders to Dunn’s analysis, see D. Cohn-Sherbok, “Some Reflections on James Dunn’s ‘The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11–18),’ ” JSNT 18 (1983): 68–74, and J. L. Houlden, “A Response to James D. Dunn,” JSNT 18 (1983): 58–67. More recently E. P. Sanders has entered the debate. See his “Jewish Association with Gentiles and Gal. 2:11–14,” in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. R. T. Fortna and B. Gaventa (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990).
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 172.
141 J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (London: SCM, 1971), 115, quoted in J. D. G. Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11–18),” JSNT 18 (1983): 12. I am indebted to Dunn for his thorough elucidation of the Antioch episode even if I cannot follow his conclusions at every point. For two important rejoinders to Dunn’s analysis, see D. Cohn-Sherbok, “Some Reflections on James Dunn’s ‘The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11–18),’ ” JSNT 18 (1983): 68–74, and J. L. Houlden, “A Response to James D. Dunn,” JSNT 18 (1983): 58–67. More recently E. P. Sanders has entered the debate. See his “Jewish Association with Gentiles and Gal. 2:11–14,” in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. R. T. Fortna and B. Gaventa (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990).
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 172.
예수님 자신도 죄인들과 함께 거하시며 그들과 식탁의 교제를 나누셨다. 뿐만 아니라 베드로는 부정한 동물을 먹으라는 환상을 보았고(행 10:14) 백부장 고넬료에게 부으시는 성령을 경험했다.(행 11:17) 이미 복음이 유대인에게만이 아니라 이방인에게도 임한다는 사실을 분명하게 경험한 것이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 지금 베드로가 안디옥에서 이런 실수를 하고 있는 것이다.
- Clearly Jesus’ disciples did not immediately grasp the full implications of his practice of open table fellowship, nor did they easily imitate him in this regard. When in a vision Peter was told he could eat all kinds of animals, his reply reflected the typical practice of Jewish Christians at that time: “Surely not, Lord! I have never eaten anything impure or unclean” (Acts 10:14). This revelation was a critical breakthrough for Peter and for the early church. It meant that the door of salvation had been opened to the Gentiles and that a new basis of Christian fellowship had been established: not the observance of Jewish rituals but the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which, as Peter witnessed at the household of Cornelius, was given indiscriminately upon Jews and Gentiles alike. As Peter put it: “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (Acts 10:47).
What happened with Cornelius at Caesarea sent shock waves through the church at Jerusalem. Peter was confronted and given a stern reprimand: “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them” (Acts 11:3). Peter explained what had happened and concluded, “So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?” (Acts 11:17). Apparently the compelling logic of Peter’s reply stilled the objections of his critics, but, as we know, this was only a temporary calm before the next storm.
After the Cornelius incident apparently nearly everyone agreed that Gentiles could indeed be saved. But on what basis salvation was to be extended to them and under what conditions table fellowship was to be shared with them, remained matters of deep division and controversy. However, the crucial point for understanding Peter’s action at Antioch is the fact that he himself had pioneered the sharing of the gospel with the Gentiles and had already worked through to a position of Christian liberty concerning unbroken table-fellowship within the body of Christ.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 174–175.
What happened with Cornelius at Caesarea sent shock waves through the church at Jerusalem. Peter was confronted and given a stern reprimand: “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them” (Acts 11:3). Peter explained what had happened and concluded, “So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?” (Acts 11:17). Apparently the compelling logic of Peter’s reply stilled the objections of his critics, but, as we know, this was only a temporary calm before the next storm.
After the Cornelius incident apparently nearly everyone agreed that Gentiles could indeed be saved. But on what basis salvation was to be extended to them and under what conditions table fellowship was to be shared with them, remained matters of deep division and controversy. However, the crucial point for understanding Peter’s action at Antioch is the fact that he himself had pioneered the sharing of the gospel with the Gentiles and had already worked through to a position of Christian liberty concerning unbroken table-fellowship within the body of Christ.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 174–175.
본문은 야고보가 보낸 예루살렘 사절단의 도착, 식탁의 자리에서 베드로가 물러남, 이로 인해 바나바와 다른 유대 기독교인들이 영향을 받는 일련의 사건들이 연결되어서 일어나고 있다.
본문에서 이 사절단이 어떤 사람인지는 명백하지 않다. 야고보가 예루살렘 교회의 지도자로 존경받는 인물이기에 의도적으로 게바를 시험에 빠뜨리기 위해서라기 보다는 교회 지도자들 안에 율법 준수를 중시하는 우파 지도자들이었을 것으로 보인다.
본문의 떠나 물러난다라는 단어는 미완료 시제이다. 이는 천천히 물러났다는 것으로 베드로 개인만이 아니라 베드로의 행동을 보고 다른 유대 기독교인들도 영향을 받아 그 식탁의 자리에서 물러났다라는 것으로 보인다.
- In the Greek text the verbs “began to draw back” and “separate himself” are in the imperfect tense, indicating that Peter’s action may have happened gradually as, little by little, he reacted to the increasing pressures of the Jerusalem visitors until finally “he drew back and began to hold aloof” (NEB). As if Peter’s pressured withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile believers was not enough, all of the other Jewish Christians at Antioch were swept along with him in this shameful playacting.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 176.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 176.
그런데 바울을 더욱 놀라게 한 것은 바로 바나바까지도 베드로의 외식에 영향을 받았다는 것이다. 바나바는 매우 경건한 인물로 바울을 사도들에게 이끌고 이 이방인을 위한 사역에 동참하여 바울과 함께 했던 인물이다. 그런데 그마저도 외식에 빠졌다는 사실을 바울을 큰 충격에 빠뜨렸다.
13절의 외식하다라는 단어는 ‘히포크리시스’라는 헬라어 단어로 연극, 극장에서 사용되는 단어이다. 이는 연극에서 배우가 어떤 배역을 수행하면서 가면을 쓰고 행동하는 것으로 자신의 본심을 숨기고 그런체 하는 모습을 보여주는 것을 의미한다. 부정적인 표현으로 사용된다.
14절) 나는 그들의 행동이 복음의 진리를 거스르는 것임을 보았고 모든 사람들 앞에서 게바에게 이렇게 이야기했다. 네가 유대인임에도 불구하고 유대인처럼 살지 않고 이방인 처럼 살면서 어떻게 이방인들로 하여금 유대인과 같이 살라고 할 수 있느냐?
음식, 할례, 절기등을 요구하면서 이방인들을 유대인처럼 살도록 요구하는 것이 복음의 본질을 손상시키는 행동임을 바울은 알고 있었다. 그래서 그는 이 문제에 대해서 베드로를 공개적으로 책망한다. 이것이 개인적인 죄의 문제라면 마 18장의 절차를 따라야 할테지만 그렇지 않고 공동체의 문제로 반드시 공개적으로 해결해야할 필요를 느꼈기 때문이다.
- force the Gentiles to live like Jews. Peter was guilty of hypocrisy (v. 13) because, though he had been happily living like a Gentile (i.e., not observing food laws), he was now requiring Gentile Christians to observe Jewish table regulations if they wanted to eat with him. Such a requirement, however, would undermine the gospel itself by making justification depend on “works of the law” rather than “faith in Jesus Christ” (see v. 16). before them all. Because Peter’s sin was a public sin that was setting a bad example for the church, Paul confronted him publicly (compare the different procedure that Jesus commands regarding a private sin against an individual person, which hopefully can be corrected privately; cf. Matt. 18:15–20; James 5:19–20).
Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2248.
Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2248.
- In the Greek text the verbs “began to draw back” and “separate himself” are in the imperfect tense, indicating that Peter’s action may have happened gradually as, little by little, he reacted to the increasing pressures of the Jerusalem visitors until finally “he drew back and began to hold aloof” (NEB). As if Peter’s pressured withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile believers was not enough, all of the other Jewish Christians at Antioch were swept along with him in this shameful playacting.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 176.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 176.
본문의 바르게 행하다라는 단어는 ‘오르토포데인’이라는 단어로 바르게 행하다. 똑바로 걷다라는 의미이다.
- The word translated “acting in line with,” orthopodein, literally means “to walk with straight feet,” thus to “walk a straight course.” Transliterating this word into a modern medical term, we could render Paul’s statement thus: “But when I saw that they were not walking orthopedically, that is, in a straightforward, unwavering, and sincere way.”150 Elsewhere in his letters Paul had much to say about the importance of the Christian’s “walk” (Eph 4:1, 17; Col 1:10; 2:6; Rom 13:13). Later in Galatians he also would admonish his readers to “keep in step with the Spirit” (Gal 5:25). Like Peter before Antioch, they too were “running a good race” until someone “cut in” on them and threw them into confusion (Gal 5:7–10).
150 Wuest’s Word Studies, 1:74; G. D. Kilpatrick, “Gal 2:14 orthopodousin,” Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann (Berlin: Tüpelmann, 1957), 269–74. This word is found nowhere else in the NT, although a similar expression occurs in 2 Tim 2:15: ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας, “Be straightforward in your proclamation of the truth” (NEB).
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 178.
150 Wuest’s Word Studies, 1:74; G. D. Kilpatrick, “Gal 2:14 orthopodousin,” Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann (Berlin: Tüpelmann, 1957), 269–74. This word is found nowhere else in the NT, although a similar expression occurs in 2 Tim 2:15: ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας, “Be straightforward in your proclamation of the truth” (NEB).
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 178.
결국 본 식탁의 교제에서의 문제는 할례냐 무할례냐, 정결예법에 따라서 음식을 먹느냐 아니냐의 문제를 넘어서 구원의 문제에 있어서 오직 은혜로 구원을 받는을 수 있는 가 하는 문제에 영향을 준다. 율법을 준수하고 이방인들과 멀리하는 행동을 해야만 구원을 받는다는 사인을 보여주는 이러한 행동이 나아가 구원의 복음을 약화시키는 영향을 주기에 이에 대해서 바울은 강력하게 경고하고 있는 것이다.
- Though the circumstances were different, what was at stake in Antioch was the same principle for which Paul had contended against the false brothers in Jerusalem: God redeems Jews and Gentiles alike on precisely the same terms, namely, personal faith in Jesus Christ and him alone. That Peter’s vacillating and expedient behavior was a denial of this basic gospel truth is evident from two key words Paul used in this passage. By his withdrawal from table fellowship, Paul averred, Peter would “force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs.” The word “force” or “compel” (anangkazō) is precisely the same term Paul used earlier in this chapter (2:3) to describe the demands of the false brothers for Titus’s circumcision.153
The second word that indicates that the matter in Antioch was more than a simple controversy about social graces is the verb Ioudaizein, “to become a Jew,” “to turn Jew,” the full force of which becomes evident in the following verse when he contrasted those who are Jews by birth from Gentile sinners (2:15). The NIV renders the term “Gentile sinners” in quotations, indicating that it was likely a technical term in the Antiochene debate over table fellowship. What was so insidious in the separatism of Peter and his associates was the fact that they were acting as if their Gentile Christian brothers and sisters were still sinners while they, because of their ritual purity and obedience of the law, stood in a different, more favorable relationship to God. Yet Jews and Gentiles alike had been redeemed by the same Christ, regenerated by the same Holy Spirit, and made partakers of the same fellowship. Who then could dare say they should not come to the same table to partake of the same Lord’s Supper just as already they had been baptized into the name of the same one triune God? Who shall separate us from the love of Christ, or from one another? It is God who justifies … it is Christ Jesus who died (Rom 8:33–34).154
153 Betz points out that this word was prominent in the Maccabean period as a description of compulsory hellenization imposed upon the Jewish people (cf. 1 Macc 2:25; 2 Macc 6:1, 7, 18; 4 Macc 5:2, 27; Galatians, 112). If indeed Peter had succumbed to pressures originated in the context of zealous Jewish nationalism in Palestine, then there is great irony in Paul’s use of this particular term. By forcing the Gentile believers to “Judaize,” Peter is guilty of a kind of reverse discrimination: what the enemies of Israel did and were still doing to the Jewish people, Peter was in effect doing to his Gentile brothers and sisters in Christ. Ἰουδαΐζειν is a hapax legomenon in the NT.
154 See Dunn, who comments perceptively on this passage: “If Gentiles are ‘in Christ’ (v. 17) and yet still ‘sinners,’ then we who are with them ‘in Christ’ are thereby found to be sinners too, and Christ has become an ‘agent of sin’ (hamartias diakonos). But that cannot be right (v. 17). I cannot live my life ‘in Christ’ and at the same time give the law the significance it had when I was a Pharisee, for the law neither gives nor expresses life in Christ but simply shows me up as a transgressor” (“Incident at Antioch,” 36). Dunn further suggests that the Antioch episode was a breakthrough for Paul because through it he came to see for the first time the implications of justification by faith not simply as the basis of conversion but as a regulative principle for the whole of the believer’s life. While it is surely likely that his painful conflict with Peter reinforced this doctrinal principle as a nonnegotiable fundamental of the apostle’s life and ministry, the whole issue arose in the first place because justification by faith was already the theological lodestar in Paul’s body of divinity. On this controverted issue in Pauline theology, see Dunn’s, “The New Perspective on Paul,” BJRL 65 (1983): 95–122, and the magisterial study by P. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966).
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 181.
The second word that indicates that the matter in Antioch was more than a simple controversy about social graces is the verb Ioudaizein, “to become a Jew,” “to turn Jew,” the full force of which becomes evident in the following verse when he contrasted those who are Jews by birth from Gentile sinners (2:15). The NIV renders the term “Gentile sinners” in quotations, indicating that it was likely a technical term in the Antiochene debate over table fellowship. What was so insidious in the separatism of Peter and his associates was the fact that they were acting as if their Gentile Christian brothers and sisters were still sinners while they, because of their ritual purity and obedience of the law, stood in a different, more favorable relationship to God. Yet Jews and Gentiles alike had been redeemed by the same Christ, regenerated by the same Holy Spirit, and made partakers of the same fellowship. Who then could dare say they should not come to the same table to partake of the same Lord’s Supper just as already they had been baptized into the name of the same one triune God? Who shall separate us from the love of Christ, or from one another? It is God who justifies … it is Christ Jesus who died (Rom 8:33–34).154
153 Betz points out that this word was prominent in the Maccabean period as a description of compulsory hellenization imposed upon the Jewish people (cf. 1 Macc 2:25; 2 Macc 6:1, 7, 18; 4 Macc 5:2, 27; Galatians, 112). If indeed Peter had succumbed to pressures originated in the context of zealous Jewish nationalism in Palestine, then there is great irony in Paul’s use of this particular term. By forcing the Gentile believers to “Judaize,” Peter is guilty of a kind of reverse discrimination: what the enemies of Israel did and were still doing to the Jewish people, Peter was in effect doing to his Gentile brothers and sisters in Christ. Ἰουδαΐζειν is a hapax legomenon in the NT.
154 See Dunn, who comments perceptively on this passage: “If Gentiles are ‘in Christ’ (v. 17) and yet still ‘sinners,’ then we who are with them ‘in Christ’ are thereby found to be sinners too, and Christ has become an ‘agent of sin’ (hamartias diakonos). But that cannot be right (v. 17). I cannot live my life ‘in Christ’ and at the same time give the law the significance it had when I was a Pharisee, for the law neither gives nor expresses life in Christ but simply shows me up as a transgressor” (“Incident at Antioch,” 36). Dunn further suggests that the Antioch episode was a breakthrough for Paul because through it he came to see for the first time the implications of justification by faith not simply as the basis of conversion but as a regulative principle for the whole of the believer’s life. While it is surely likely that his painful conflict with Peter reinforced this doctrinal principle as a nonnegotiable fundamental of the apostle’s life and ministry, the whole issue arose in the first place because justification by faith was already the theological lodestar in Paul’s body of divinity. On this controverted issue in Pauline theology, see Dunn’s, “The New Perspective on Paul,” BJRL 65 (1983): 95–122, and the magisterial study by P. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966).
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 181.
본문이 주는 교훈
1. Great leaders can fall.
There was every reason for Peter to resist the pressure to compromise his convictions in the face of pressure. He had been in the intimate circle of Jesus’ closest disciples. He was a primary witness to the resurrection. He had witnessed the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. He had even been used by God as the instrument of evangelistic breakthrough to the Gentiles. Yet in a moment of crisis he failed and by the force of his example led many others astray as well. Paul’s warning to the Galatians is clear: what happened to Peter can happen to you! He “that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12, KJV). In recent years the church of Jesus Christ has witnessed the downfall of many greatly gifted and highly visible leaders. Their lapse is not only a matter of personal tragedy but also a blight on the body of Christ. May God help us to test every message we hear by the touchstone of his Word and save us from exalting any human leader above measure.
2. God’s grace means no second-class Christians.
2. God’s grace means no second-class Christians.
The withdrawal of Jewish believers from table companionship with their Gentile brothers and sisters precipitated a serious breach within the Antiochene church. Throughout the history of the church, and especially in missionary settings, the sharing of a simple meal has often symbolized the unity and fellowship implied in the message of salvation through Christ. When William Carey and his associates carried the gospel message to India, they confronted a situation very similar to that reflected in this passage. From the beginning Carey felt that the holding of caste was incompatible with faith in Christ. He thus refused to baptize anyone who continued to maintain caste distinctions that included the refusal to share together in a common meal. Yet for a Hindu to eat with a European in that culture meant the foreswearing of his caste. When Carey’s first Hindu convert, a man named Krishna Pal, became a Christian and decided to break caste by taking dinner with the missionaries, William Ward, one of Carey’s fellow workers, exclaimed in words that breathe the spirit of the New Testament: “Thus the door of faith is open to the Gentiles. Who shall shut it? The chain of caste is broken; who shall mend it?”156 Racism of any brand in any culture is incompatible with the truth of the gospel. Later in Galatians (3:26–29) Paul would spell out the implications of Christian unity in terms of the promise of grace fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Any religious system or theology that denies this truth stands in opposition to the “new creation” God is bringing into being, the body of Christ based not on caste, color, or social condition but on grace alone.
3. Standing for the gospel can be a lonely business.
3. Standing for the gospel can be a lonely business.
When the crisis became more intense, Barnabas sided with Peter in the confrontation with Paul. The Apostle to the Gentiles stood alone on behalf of the gospel. In the fourth century Athanasius stood contra mundum, “against the world,” when the deity of Christ was at stake in the Arian struggle. In the sixteenth century Luther stood alone at the Diet of Worms because, as he said, his conscience was captive to the Word of God. In victorian England Charles Haddon Spurgeon stood alone during the Downgrade Controversy to protest “the boiling mud-showers of modern heresy” that were beginning to descend on Baptist life in his day.157 Thank God for these brave warriors of the faith who did not flinch in the hour of temptation, who refused to flirt with the false gods of their age and thus have passed on to us a goodly heritage of courage and faith.
156 Quoted in T. George, Faithful Witness: The Life and Mission of William Carey (London: InterVarsity, 1991), 130–31.
157 C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography (London: Passmore and Alabaster, 1900), 4:261–62.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 182–183.
156 Quoted in T. George, Faithful Witness: The Life and Mission of William Carey (London: InterVarsity, 1991), 130–31.
157 C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography (London: Passmore and Alabaster, 1900), 4:261–62.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 182–183.
'성경묵상 > 갈라디아서' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 갈 3:1-5 율법의 행외로냐 혹은 듣고 믿음으로냐? (0) | 2017.04.21 |
|---|---|
| 갈 2:15-21 믿음으로 의롭게 됨1 (0) | 2017.04.06 |
| 갈 2:6-10 이방인의 사도 바울 (0) | 2017.04.04 |
| 갈 2:1-5 바울의 예루살렘 2차 방문 (0) | 2017.03.31 |
| 갈 1:18-24 바울이 전한 그 믿음 (0) | 2017.03.30 |