Nomos and the Dispute in Galatians 2: A Case of Conflicting By-Laws

Abstract

This research explores the interpretation of nomos in Galatians 2:11–21 within the light of Greco-Roman associations and Palestinian chavurot. As such, it proposes a reading of the text and conflict as a localized issue of conflicting association by-laws between Jews and Gentiles. The members of Jacob’s association in Jerusalem demonstrated Pharisaic behavior in requiring circumcision for membership in the association and requiring the additional observance of purity and tithing regulations as interpreted by the association as crucial elements of its by-laws. Paul chastises Peter for breaking the by-laws of the Jewish assembly when eating with the Gentiles but then “separating himself” from them and requiring the Gentiles to observe the by-laws that he had just broken. Paul then explains how the Jewish association’s by-laws are not required for his Gentile followers and redirects them to the faithfulness of Christ as their means of being set right and the means of acquiring justice.

1. Introduction

The debate around Paul’s place within Second Temple Judaism has provoked intense scholarly debate between classical Reformation perspectives, the New Perspective, and the so-called radical school or Paul-within-Judaism understanding. The New Perspective understood Paul’s disagreements with the agitators in Galatia to concern the “works of the law” understood as Paul’s condemnation of distinctive Jewish1 identity markers by Gentiles. These works of the law were the special laws of Judaism, i.e., dietary laws, observances of the holidays and Sabbath, purity, and circumcision (Segal 1990, p. 124). Judaizing (ioudaizein, living like a Jew). This led to a distinction between being Jew by birth and “living like a Jew” by observing the “works of the law” (Jackson-McCabe 2020, p. 15) that Paul opposed because observing these would trap these non-Jews in the ostensibly essential Jewish problem of ethnocentric exclusivism. By definition, only universalization in the church could free carnal Israel from this problem (Dunn 1999).

However, the perspective of Paul-within-Judaism sees Paul’s mission within Judaism, rather than as antagonistic to it (Zetterholm 2015), and that he was an observant Jew for the standards of Second Temple Judaism (Stendahl 1976). Understanding Paul’s mission is crucial to properly identify his role in Second Temple Judaism. First, and foremost, his mission was to the Gentiles, and not to Jews. His polemics were directed against fellow believers in Jesus who demanded that those Gentile believers keep the Jewish laws and customs by being circumcised. Belief in Jesus was the way in which the Nations would come to faith in the God of Israel and would serve as a sign of the coming end times (Gager 2000, 2015). That is, the full acceptance of the observance of Torah mitzvot was seen as a burden, just as it was in later rabbinic literature as well.2

From a perspective within Judaism, Paul was engaged with an intra-Jewish polemic about the interpretation of Torah, particularly among fellow believers of Jesus. His understanding of Torah and the role of the Nations was what distinguished him from others in the movement. His ethical teaching is similar to later rabbinic models of how non-Jews can be counted as righteous and inherit the World-to-Come. For instance, Paul maintains the imperative of loving one’s neighbor as a strong element of his ethical teaching to the believers of the Nations (Nanos 2009, p. 4). However, Paul himself continued to observe Torah and its commandments, as the New Testament pictures him.3

This paper seeks to address questions around the meaning of the word nomos in Galatians 2:11–21 and the conflict between Paul and the Galatian agitators, as they are usually called in the literature. Paul addresses the issue in Galatia by presenting an earlier episode of a difference in halakhic interpretation in Antioch between himself and Peter, both emissaries of Christ, sent forth from Jerusalem to the Nations and the circumcised, respectively. The nature of Greco-Roman and Palestinian associations must be carefully observed, as well as models of understanding the nature of the debates between the Pharisaic Schools of Hillel and Shammai, to understand the nature of the conflict between Paul and Peter, as well as his Galatian opponents. Here, nomos is understood to have a dual meaning, both referring to the law (nomos) of Moses (Torah) and its interpretation, reflecting the multivocality of the Greek lexeme, when applied to Jewish thought. Peter’s actions reflect an adoption of a Pharisaic nomos, that is, interpretation of halakhah and practical observance. Paul’s former identity as a Pharisee “according to the law”4 is a “loss” to his life in Christ, even if that formation guided his thinking vis-a-vis Torah observance and other matters (Frey 2007). These divisions should be viewed from a social identity perspective, which explains how one constructs identity and meaning through emotional attachment to identity categories (Tajfel 1974). The Galatian believers show evidence of individual mobility, the desire to disassociate from lesser-status identities, or through strategies to improve one’s low-status social identity (Tajfel 1975). The novelty of Paul’s conceptualization of “Kingdom pagans” (Frederiksen 2010, p. 239). did not provide an identity category meaningful enough, for at least some of the Galatian believers, which led them to consider the proposals of the Judaizing believers.

2. Paul’s Associations and Jewish Associations

The Galatian assembly was not a novelty in the religious or social framework of Greco-Roman society. These were cultic and trade associations that served many needs of the members of each group. Each assembly had a set of by-laws (nomoi) that governed the members of the association, including regulations around entrance requirements, the conduct, and nature of meetings, behavior expected at common meals, disciplinary practices, and the financing of the association (Kloppenborg 2019, p. 41). People joined associations because they offered a sense of connectivity through relationships with peers and those of a higher social status, those of other ethnicities or the like (Kloppenborg 2019, p. 55).

Paul’s story begins in the synagogue of Damascus, a type of association, where the members rejected his kerygma.5 The Jerusalem meeting presented a halakhic opinion about the legal status and obligations of non-Jewish members around 50 CE.6 This might have created confusion vis-a-vis social interaction and relationships between Jewish and non-Jewish members (Frederiksen 1991).7 Paul recounts how he earlier persecuted Christ believers, which would have occurred within the context of the synagogue in Damascus, applying the disciplinary measures of the beit din (Hultgren 1976). The reason for Paul’s persecution of the Christ believers in Damascus is postulated by Frederiksen to be for the same reason he was later persecuted: for admitting Gentiles to the ekklesia without circumcision. She sees the ekklesia as a sub-group within the synagogue that operated under a separate set of nomoi, requiring Gentiles to voluntarily Judaize, that is, commit themselves exclusively to the Jewish deity and not to sacrifice to their native gods, both ritual Judaizing behaviors in the Greco-Roman period and beyond what the synagogue required of them (Frederiksen 2022). The expectation of an influx of Gentiles worshiping the God of Israel at the end times was a common apocalyptic viewpoint at the time, but the ritual demands of the Gentile Christ-believers went beyond those of the synagogue. These Gentiles were not under their jurisdiction and synagogue officials might have felt uncomfortable with the nomoi of these ekklesiai. Paul’s zeal for the Gospel was in administering the maximum punishment towards Jews involved with these mixed assemblies.

The issue of Gentiles in either the synagogue or ekklesia would have provoked debate due to the association of Gentiles with immorality and impurity. The extent to which Jews observed purity regulations outside of Israel is debated, some asserting that the Pharisaic purity regulations were not observed at all in the Diaspora (Sanders et al. 1990; Bockmuehl 1999)8. However, this is not accepted by others (S. Cohen 2014). It is certainly true that mikva’ot, ritual baths, have not been found outside of Israel, implying that cultic ritual purity regulations were not observed (Magness 2017). Yet, there was also a strong association of immoral acts with impurity, albeit not cultic purity. This was probably derived from the Torah itself, which states that idolatry, sexual transgressions, and murder pollute the Land (Neusner 1975).9 Ritual impurity is tied to natural processes and was not thought of as sinful. However, moral impurity carried severe consequences, being addressed through atonement, punishment, or exile from the Land (Klawans 2005, p. 56). Immoral acts were thought to be able to render a land impure, yet the Land of Israel was thought of as intrinsically holy and dedicated to God. Gentiles were not inherently pure, but through committing acts such as idolatry or immoral acts, they became morally impure (Hayes 2002, p. 43). Others would see this as too soft, and that there were certainly views of the Gentiles as intrinsically impure, both in a ritual and moral sense.10 Paul seems to follow in the view that immoral acts cause impurity among Gentiles, even though he assigns prestige to being born Jewish11 and associates Gentiles with being a sinner.12

Later rabbinic material seemingly denies full human status to Gentiles, not including them under the banner of adam (‘person’).13 There was even debate about the extent to which Gentiles should Judaize. Based on textual evidence from Ezra-Nehemiah, Baruch, and Jubilees, Thiessen presents a case that some Jews thought Gentiles were prohibited from Judaizing in a worldview that classified people as either priests, Israelites, or Gentiles, all genealogically defined groups. Gentiles who Judaized were thought by some as guilty of theft, as the nomos was a gift from God to Israel. Such strict genealogical thinking was present in some rabbinic attitudes towards converts in later texts (Thiessen 2016).

Jews tended to associated Gentiles with “sin” as Paul does,14 especially the characteristic sexual and social sins associated with them: slander, insolence, gossip, envy, fornication and idolatry.15 These types of lists and the instruction that Paul givens to avoid such immoral acts are reflective of broader Hellenistic Judaism (Kasemann 1994). However, Gentiles who supported Jews were considered better than those who did not (S.J.D. Cohen 1987). The Rabbis held universal salvation to the Gentiles who were righteous.16 Gentiles could support Jews through partial affiliation as a God-fearer or through full conversion by circumcision (for males). The God-fearers (phobomenoi) are sometimes thought of as “semi-proselytes,” (Novak 2011) although Frederiksen opposes this classification (Frederiksen 1991, pp. 541–42).

Associations also existed in Judea, perhaps in multiple forms, perhaps including the ancestor of the synagogue and the Pharisaic chavurah. Synagogues in the Land of Israel had some level of civic authority, including the adjudication of legal matters, (Runesson and Cirafesi 2021) some execution of punitive measures such as flogging, (Tucker and Cirafesi 2023)17 and serving as places of Torah interpretation and places of prayer, as well as public libraries (Cirafesi 2021). On the other hand, synagogues in the Diaspora were based on ethnic connection but could also rely on trade connections and geographical proximity to establish a membership. In Rome, thirteen synagogues drew on membership from the neighborhood in which the synagogue met. The same kind of organization occurred in Alexandria18 and there is evidence for the same organizational patterns in Palestine (Instone-Brewer and Harland 2008, p. 203).

The Hebrew root ח.ב.ר refers to “friend”, although the lexical item also has the connotation of “associate” and “to associate.” These were a strict group within Second Temple Judaism that had a special set of nomoi that required strict observance of tithing and ritual purity and limited interaction with am ha’aretz (those who did not practice the special regulations) (Instone-Brewer and Harland 2008, p. 206). These met for regular meals and consisted of fifteen to thirty associates, such as for the Passover meal19, for a group who ate a peace offering on a festival day20, or for other unspecified ritual meals21, including ones on a Sabbath (Instone-Brewer and Harland 2008, p. 201).22 In pre-70 CE material, halakhic traditions reject drinking parties after banquets, perhaps representing the Pharisees and proto-rabbis (Schiffman 1995, pp. 97–98). Some have even seen the Qumran community as reflecting a small association and not a larger sect (Fraade 2009).

The chaverim are most often associated with the Pharisees, one of the more prominent sects in the first century CE. The Pharisees were noted for the traditions of the fathers that were not part of the written Torah and the observance of tithing and ritual purity (Grabbe 2010, p. 54) The Mishnah shows interest in the same types of themes, i.e., ritual purity, eating, festivals, agricultural regulations, and laws relating to the exchange of women, indicating a genealogical connection between the groups. The origins of the Pharisaic traditions of the fathers are likely found in an attempt by a group of Jews to observe the temple cult in their own homes, which emphasized eating food in ritual purity and properly observing the rules of tithing, purity, and the Sabbath. The group was likely concerned with table fellowship, and one needed to maintain a similar observance of such rules to join the association (Grabbe 2010, p. 57). The Gospels associate the Pharisees with ritual purity, tithes, oaths, and vows, Sabbath and marriage, all matters of Jewish customary ways.23 In rabbinic sources, the same kinds of disputes are preserved in relation to the Pharisees, (Furstenberg 2021) as do the Qumran complaints against the Pharisees.24

The connection between the Pharisees and Rabbis is generally assumed, but not universally accepted (Sigal 2007). The Rabbis initially mirrored the Pharisees in their stated concerns and the sphere of their influence in matters of ritual law, but not matters of private law (Shapira 2007; Lapin 2006). The development of rabbinic law as it related to civil law was something that occurred in the later part of the second century. This likely accompanied an increased social prestige and authority associated with the Rabbis, replacing their Jewish sectarian competitors and assuming some of the roles of Roman courts before.

3. Halakhah and Nomos

What is the relationship of halakhah to nomos? Are they interchangeable terms? Halakhah comes from the Hebrew root, halakh, referring to “walking” and became the default way to refer to the practical implementation of Torah laws in rabbinic literature. Methodologically, this study relies on attempts to date rabbinic material, while acknowledging the complexities in doing so (Schremer 2005; S. Rubenstein 1971; A. Cohen 1986, 2006).25 It is generally accepted that halakhic traditions are more reliably dated in rabbinic material than aggadic and the names of rabbis associated with legal positions can serve as a means of dating the tradition (Instone-Brewer 2011).26

Nomos and physis are two concepts used in ancient Greek thought, but also by other Diaspora Jewish writers. The roughly contemporaneous work, 4 Maccabees, dated to the first or second century CE uses word nomos nearly forty times. In the work, it seems to refer to the functions of teaching, enabling rational living, encouragement, condemning certain actions, and commanding/prohibiting certain actions. In classical Greek thought, nomos implied teaching, especially the instruction of children. Redditt reads its use in 4 Maccabees as a means of teaching Jewish culture and encouraging Jews suffering under persecution. This contrasts with physis (φύσις), natural law, which is used in the work, but which refers to an inherent principle of world-order built into creation but revealed through the nomos (Redditt 1983). This is similar to the way in which Philo uses nomos to refer to the Torah itself and physis as “the nature of God who stands in direct opposition to the world of existing things and imposes his nomos upon them” (Koester 2007, p. 136). Paul uses the term physis on two occasions in Galatians, once to refer to himself as a Jew by physis (Gal. 2:15) and to refer to the object of the Galatians’ pagan worship as not gods by physis (Gal. 4:8). In the apocalyptic book, 4 Ezra, torah refers to the written Scriptures, covenantal commands. and the universal moral code, whereas it is of crucial importance in 2 Baruch, but left undefined largely (Sheinfeld 2020, p. 67).

There were differences in interpretation of halakhah among the various sects of the Second Temple period (Schiffman 1994, p. 99). Additionally, “observing the Torah” could constitute a number of varying practices (Runesson 2016). Josephus began to accept the opinions of the Pharisees upon his entrance into public life (Mason 2009)27. Zellentin sees the divergence between Pharisees and Sadducees as somewhat analogous to the discussions around originalism and the living constitution in American jurisprudence (Zellentin 2006). In this model, the Sadducees adopted an originalist position, because they “saw the literal word of God, the written Torah, as sole and sufficient basis for all legal observances” (Zellentin 2006, p. 281). Zellentin also portrays Matthew as a non-Sadduccean originalist, based on a reading of Jesus’ criticisms of the Pharisees in the Gospel. His writings reflect halakhic positions that show a view different from the written Torah and reflecting sources in Philo, Ben Sira, and targumic literature (Goldenberg 1976).

Later rabbinic tradition looked back to the Hasmonean and Herodian periods to establish their own authority and presented a tradition of competing schools of halakhic interpretation called the schools of Hillel and Shammai, named after their founders. The Rabbis derived their authority via a chain of transmission that begins with Moses and follows through the prophets.28 The first historical character in their succession list is Shimon the Righteous, who lived in the second century BCE and was a high priest.29 Hillel can loosely be tied to the “elders of Patera”,30 a military group that emigrated from Babylon,31 yet Hillel is only known from rabbinic literature, unlike Shimon. He is dated to the Herodian period and thought to be a Babylonian transplant brought to displace the Sadducees and Hasmoneans (Stern 1966). Rabbinic literature confirms his origins in Babylonia,32 and he is presented as one who came to Palestine to espouse the Pharisaic doctrine of the two Torahs (Werman 2018, p. 72) and to resolve issues of contradiction in biblical interpretation.33 Later sources avoid linking him to the political situation in Palestine. Hillel was known as nasi, with scholars debating the historicity of these claims (Sharon 2013). Werman interprets this as later historical interpolations to bolster the claims of Judah the Prince’s authority (Werman 2018)34. Hillel is associated with various taqqanot (legal enactments) that might not derive from him but similarly serve to strengthen the Rabbis’ own legal innovation (Jaffee 1999)35. However, others concur that there is likely a historical kernel behind this figure and that the Schools associated with Hillel and Shammai did exist and the Rabbis coalesced after the Temple’s destruction as a coalition of Pharisaic and Sadducean elements (Herr 2010).

These schools likely differed on aspects of legal interpretation and their approach to Torah study, although this is based on later rabbinic evidence (Shapira 2007). The schools might have operated for around one hundred years.36 Josephus mentions two scholars flourishing under Herod the Great: Pollion and Samias.37 Some have linked these figures to Hillel and Shammai.38 The term “house” was used to refer to separatist groups, but is also how the schools of Hillel and Shammai were called. These groups did not have the characteristic initiation rituals of separatist groups (Flusser 1970). There was an open relationship between the schools, often with members of one group identifying with the interpretations of another.39 The groups had a loose hierarchy of “elders” and “students”.40 The schools were organized in a similar way, albeit with some differences, to the ways that later rabbinic disciple circles were organized (Goodblatt 1975; J. Rubenstein 2002).

What do Philo and Josephus explicitly state about the laws of the Jews?

The Pharisaic traditions are contrasted to the laws of Moses, which are followed by all Ioudaioi, which is explored in Antiquities 1–12. This can be read as a version of the rabbinic idea of the oral Torah (Baumgarten 1977). However, this is viewed as additional to the Torah (Mason 2009, p. 198). In contrast, the rabbinic view includes the oral Torah as part of the universal legislation incumbent on all Jews (Neusner 1971, p. 163). The universal constitution of the Jews (Ap. 2.190) includes things such as the prohibition of idols (Ap. 2.191), and having one temple (Ap. 2.193–195), where sacrifices are offered in a state of ritual purity (Ap. 2.196; 198, 203). It includes marriage regulations (Ap. 2.198—201), and requires a decent burial (Ap. 2.205), among other regulations. It is incumbent on all Jews (Ap. 2.211). Josephus’ comments about the law of Moses serve as an aspirational and idealized presentation of Jewish law as superior to Greco-Roman law (Sheinfeld 2020).

Philo reiterates the points made by Josephus and adds the proper treatment of slaves (Preparation for the Gospel 8.7.2), regulations surrounding marriage and the duties and responsibilities of children to parents (8.7.3–8.7.5), the golden rule (8.7.6), giving to the poor (8.7.7), providing a proper funeral, prohibiting abortion, treating animals respectfully, not enslaving his offspring, and dealing in business dishonestly (8.7.8). Philo also mentions ritual purity (8.7.6), the observance of the Sabbath (8.7.12–13) and some agricultural laws (8.7.15; 8.7.9). The law is a “wonder” and “not a single one of the commandments” should be violated. It is a unique mark of the Ioudaioi and their qualities (8.7.11). This makes the contrast between the common constitution of the Ioudaioi and the specific regulations incumbent upon members of the Pharisaic movement.

Paul’s understanding of law (nomos) reflects the development of this concept at that time. Philo speaks of two divinely legislated laws, one of nature and one of Moses; although this is quite distinct from later rabbinic concepts of oral Torah, it is important to highlight the development of such ideas (Najman 2003). Philo uses the terms nomos to refer to the written law and logos to refer to be at the same level of God and the cosmos and manifest in the laws of nature Sheinfeld 2020). Some intertestamental works show a development towards the idea of two Torahs. For example, Jubilees mentions Moses receiving two Torahs, one written by God on tablets and one written by Moses given to him by an angel.41 Paul might mean two things by nomos, referring to a torah of deeds and a torah of trust, reflecting different facets of the Hebrew Bible. Paul uses the multivocality of the Torah to make it relevant to the Gentiles in his associations (Fisch 2020). Others see nomos in Paul’s writings referring to “a customary-that is, socially established and maintained-norm” (Wishart 2019). The word might refer to Greco-Roman law or custom, rather than the Torah in certain instances (Wilson 2022). This paper will argue for an understanding of nomos as reflecting the regulations of Jewish associations, contrasting the ekklesia with Pharisaic chavurot and the general synagogue nomos. This would make the conflict over a matter of halakhic interpretation, similar to the manner of disputes among the Schools of Hillel and Shammai, which, if they existed as rabbinic literature portrays, would be roughly contemporaneous to Paul’s movement.

4. Reading Galatians as a Problem of By-Laws and Halakhic Interpretation

The letter to the Galatians was provoked by the announcement (evangelion) of the agitators, which occurred before Paul’s writing of the letter. Paul uses the story of the Antioch incident to bolster his points vis-a-vis the proper halakhic interpretation of the nomos in the ekklesia. The issue at hand is not circumcision per se, but issues that arise because of the inclusion of Gentiles in the ekklesia with Paul’s ritual demands of them. This results in an “open table” policy that allows for mixed meals of Jews and Gentiles. Additionally, the agitators have begun to demand that Gentiles be circumcised.

The incident at Antioch occurred at a banquet, which was a highly structured and hierarchical event (Smith 2003). Paul’s banquets differed from typical Jewish banquets in that the seating arrangement did not reflect local halakhic norms by not arranging the placement of non-Jews at alternative tables, rejecting the normative hierarchical social position of Jews (Nanos 2017).

At Antioch, Peter and Paul clashed over the proper way to conduct themselves as Christ-believing Jews. They had met some seventeen years earlier, three years after Paul’s change of heart and belief in Jesus.42 He stayed with Peter for fifteen days and also met Jesus’ brother, Jacob, during the same visit to Jerusalem. He went again to Jerusalem fourteen years later with Barnabas and Titus to resolve the issue of the circumcision of Gentile believers.

Paul’s lengthy biographical statements are unique to this letter and serve a rhetorical purpose (Wright 1996). Paul’s autobiographical statements are marked by stability and an introduced tension. The revelation to go to Jerusalem is the tension that breaks the stability. Paul brings his Greek companion, Titus, to serve as a testimony to his work among the Nations (Wiarda 2004). In Paul’s mind, this meeting ends with the acceptance of his apostleship by Peter and Jacob. Paul was to be the apostle to the Nations and Peter was the apostle to the circumcised.

Paul’s role as the messenger of the messiah is a role that is associated with most Jewish messianic figures (Gager 1998). Receiving visions comes along with the role (Eyl 2019). Novenson sees Paul’s conceptualization of Christ as a lesser deity in a Greco-Roman context, (Novenson 2012) whose goal is to “win and to maintain their [the Gentiles] obedience to his patron deity, which they prove by declaring their trust” (Novenson 2019, p. 6). It seems the Jesus movement accepted two emissaries, one to the Nations and one to the “circumcised,” which included both Jews and circumcised proselytes from the Nations. These would all fall under the authority of Peter and Jacob. This reading implies that Paul’s account is ecumenical in nature and reflects the consensus of the Jerusalem meeting, a point that is doubted by many.43

Sometime after the meeting in Jerusalem, although it is not specified how long after, Peter came to Antioch. It is unclear why he came to Antioch, but it must be presumed that there were circumcised believers there who fell under his jurisdiction. For after he arrived in Antioch, other representatives of Jacob came to Antioch as well. Wiarda presents a plot analysis of the narrative in the first chapters and notes a moment of stability in the participation of Peter in the meal, followed by tension with the arrival of Jacob’s representatives and a resolution with Peter and the Jews separating themselves (Wiarda 2004).

Paul’s account is accepted by some scholars (Just 2010) and can be reconciled with the accounts of the Jerusalem meeting in Acts (Bauckham 1995). Of course, the meeting represented two viewpoints, one concerning Gentiles and the other concerning Jews (Martyn 1997, p. 206). The relationship between Paul’s report and that of Acts 15 is a matter of debate. Some propose two meetings, a private meeting of Paul, Peter, Jacob, and John in Galatians 2 and a later public meeting recounted in Acts 15 (Just 2010, p. 278ff). This would imply that Paul’s meeting occurred first, followed by the meeting in Antioch and then a later conciliatory meeting in Jerusalem that Paul does not mention (Bauckham 1995, pp. 469–70). This seems an unnecessarily complex scenario and more likely that Acts uses Paul’s own statements against eating meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Cor 8–10 and his various statements against sexual immorality to construct a possible letter sent by Jacob to the assemblies in Christ.

Paul’s letter is a type of halakhic letter meant to settle the issue of conduct of Gentile believers in the ekklesia sub-group, similar to the Qumran text 4QMMT (Le Cornu and Shulam 2005). The primary issue is one of halakhah which involves legal decisions about proper behavior in specific circumstances (Tomson 1990). Paul sees the agitators as adopting a halakhah contrary to the proper way of conduct among Christ believers, by appealing to Pharisaic authority, instead of basing their conduct in the revelation of Christ to Paul (Hays 2000). However, Paul is no originalist himself, instead deriving halakhic authority via prophetic revelation, that is the halakhah “in Christ”.44

These assertions rely on a mirror reading of Galatians, which has notably been difficult to do, (Barclay 1987) but relying on Paul’s perception of reality and presentation of information suggests such a scenario. Hardin defines mirror reading as, “the very specific exercise whereby an interpreter reflects back the opposite of a biblical text to discern the situation presupposed in the text (and thus should not be confused with other tasks in the reconstructive process)” (Hardin 2014, p. 276), and proposes that this methodology is inherently problematic when “deciphering” the identity and aims of the Galatian agitators.

The identity of the Galatian agitators is the subject of some debate. Some see the agitators as Gentile proselytes to Judaism (Nanos 2019; Thiessen 2016). Others see a more practical reason for the agitators’ change of tune, accepting them as Pauline Christ believers who altered their approach due to social pressure, i.e., they were people pleasers, unlike Paul (Hardin 2014). However, they were not legalists in the classic sense and did not question Paul’s apostleship (Hardin 2008; Winter 1994, 2002).

However, the agitators of the circumcision party were promoting an innovation within Judaism, that Gentiles must be circumcised. Likewise, Paul defended the status quo saying that they did not need to be circumcised, but also innovated by saying that they should not be circumcised and in requiring their ritual loyalty to Israel’s God. Frederiksen interprets this change within the movement to the inevitable reinterpretations and adjustments necessary in apocalyptic movements that fail (Frederiksen 1991, p. 559). Paul and the agitators were both responding to the issue of Gentile impurity in a different way. Gentiles in the synagogue were still technically idolaters and impure by association. Paul believes that abandoning idolatry through the faithfulness of Christ (Jermo 2013) will solve this problem, whereas the Judaizers believe that full circumcision is required.

Peter’s behavior in Antioch is characterized by Paul as a demonstration of Pharisaic attitude and the regulations of the chavurah when he “fears those of the circumcision”, contrasted with “Jews by nature”45 by Paul. Peter, Barnabas, and the Jews with Paul “pretend” to be “separated”, that is, perushim. However, Paul opposes Peter “to his face” and calls this separation “hypocrisy.” The assertion that the behavior of some of the members of the association as “Pharisaic” is only possible by attempting to map the behaviors onto existing paradigms from the era. However, the presence of Pharisees outside of Palestine is not entirely known, except through Paul’s claim to be a Pharisee (Phil. 3:5).

The behavior of Peter is contrary to the “truth of the announcement” because he associates with those of the circumcision who encourage all Gentiles to Judaize and follow all of the by-laws of the perushim. However, when Peter associates with this group, he is hypocritical, because he has just eaten with the Nations before their arrival, showing that he does not accept all of the by-laws upon himself, something that the Nations would have to carry out if they become circumcised and members of the other association.

2:11–14

And when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was condemned, for he was eating with [those of] the nations before the coming of certain [ones] from Jacob. He was withdrawing and separating himself when they came, fearing those of the circumcision. And pretended with him the other Jews, so that even Barnabas was carried away by the hypocrisy. But when I saw that they are not walking uprightly to the truth of the announcement, I said to Peter before all, If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of the nations, and not in the manner of the Jews, how do you compel the nations to judaize?

After having a basic outline of the components of this re-reading of this famous passage, an analysis of the constituent phrases in the passage will be presented to support the case being made.

This model might seem to doubt the inherent heterogeneity in the early Jesus movement. However, the issue at hand is less the doubting of division but, rather, proposing a model to explain how that division manifested itself within the life of the community. First, the actors seem to consist of two parties, those who agree with Paul and those who agree with Jacob. Most of the Jews end up siding with Jacob’s view, even Barnabas. There are two underlying issues. First is the correct behavior of Jewish Christ believers in the presence of Christ-believing Gentiles. And the second is implied by this but the attitude of the Jews towards the Gentiles.

4.1. He Was Eating with Them

The dispute stems from issues of commensality, which refers to the act of eating together. In addition to general commensality, some have suggested a eucharistic undertone to the incident at Antioch, which is presumed to have occurred at a Christ assembly banquet (Just 2010, p. 269). Commensality is subject to several debates about the scope of its definition. The meal is an individualistic act but also a socially shared ritual (Simmel 1997). The social nature of the ritual either creates or reinforces group rules and hierarchies, as consuming food and drink solidifies social solidarity (Grignon 2001). That is, commensality can create social bonds but also reinforce social demarcation, hierarchies, and distinction.

There are other important issues at play, such as the physicality of commensality. Where does the meal take place? Domestic commensality can increase social solidarity among close friends and family but can still manifest power asymmetry, even if lessened than in other places of commensality. Institutional commensality is much more prone to demonstrate hierarchical relationships. The physical object of the table (mensa) is also important, as well as the utensils used, and the infrastructure required for cooking and serving meals. These and many other aspects show the importance of materiality to commensality. The immaterial aspects of commensality include the relationships among the participants and the rules required of them. Participation in the common meal reinforces one’s sense of belonging to that group. In the same manner, segregative commensality can establish an us/them relationship between those who participate in the meal and those who do not (Jönsson et al. 2021).

Tite sees the issue of commensality at play in another of Paul’s letters, 1 Corinthians 11, where there is friction at the communal meal gatherings and the consumption of meat offered to idols. The main issue seems to be the impact of commensal relations in the community, or in other words, who one dines with as being more important for the Corinthian believers than what is being consumed. The act of sharing a meal makes identity, social relationships, and power relationships. Commensality implies more than the menu shared by participants but a shared identity through food. To share food with other people is to share ontological status, perhaps even identify with them (Fischler 2011, pp. 533–34). The thanksgiving meal shared by the Corinthians has this exact purpose, to merge the individual and the whole community (Tite 2019, p. 210). In summary, Tite reads the issue at the heart of the question about consuming meat offered to idols as being a matter of in-group vs. out-group identity. Within the community, some require endo-commensal relations, maintaining rigid social boundaries around food, and prohibiting eating with outsiders. Others hold to exo-commensal relations, allowing for food to be shared with outsiders, without concern for the manners and values of eating sacrificial meat, which was prohibited by the former. This should be viewed in light of Corinthian factionalism addressed in the beginning of the letter. Paul wishes to remove the ambiguity from the different commensal models and to promote the shared group identity of his associations (Tite 2019, p. 212). The practice of dietary restrictions is not explicitly mentioned but might have been something that members of the associations practiced in constructing identities around the covenant with God established in the Hebrew Bible (Tite 2019, p. 215). It should not be forgotten that there was also likely a strong ritual component that involved real communion with the deity through the consumption of food (Fotopoulos 2002; Willis 2004).

4.2. Separating Himself

Peter has joined Paul in Antioch for a communal meal. He begins by dining with the Gentiles who were a part of the association in Antioch. Jacob’s representatives came to Antioch and this caused Peter to separate himself (aphorizen), perhaps an allusion to the perushim, those who separated themselves from the am ha’aretz, those who did not observe the special nomoi of the chavurah to scrupulously observe the laws of purity and tithing. Gentile meats and wine were considered impure46 and their wine was assumed to have been used in pagan libations47 and their idolatry to transmit impurity48, as well as Gentiles themselves being assumed to be impure.49 The verb aphorizen also has military and political connotations of withdrawing for safety, as well as cultic separation. Peter accomplishes both by assuring himself of safety vis-a-vis the table fellowship customs he adopts but also through withdrawing from the thanksgiving meal, as the Galatians eat it (Martyn 1997, p. 233). Peter might have had several concerns about the table fellowship with Gentile believers, including the association of eating meat in Gentile society with prayers to pagan deities, (Smith 2003, p. 160) the possibility of impure foods at the meal, a law Jews would not be willing to break as they saw it as a symbol of their relationship to God (Meeks 2003, p. 97). Additionally, pagan cults were associated with temple prostitution, something Jews condemned in the Torah (Deut 23:17–18). However, it is important to note that the underlying issue at Antioch was not necessarily the Gentiles themselves, and not about their being circumcised or keeping Jewish laws directly, but a criticism of Paul’s appearance of being lax with Jewish law. However, Peter insisting on such a strong Jewish identity was to signal to Gentiles that they should be circumcised (Just 2010, p. 273).

The word ἀφορίζω can refer to (1) marking boundaries50, (2) to separate or distinguish51, (3) to exclude52, (4) to bring to an end or to finish,53 to set apart, ordain.54 In the New Testament, it is used with the connotation of separation in Acts 19:9, when Paul separates himself from the synagogue, after trying to teach them about the Kingdom of God for months. He finds acceptance in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. In the Gospels, the word is used to refer to the separation of the righteous and the wicked on the day of judgment.55 In the Gospel of Luke, the word is used in the version of the Beatitude in which Jesus blesses those who are ostracized (6:22).

Examining the five shades of meaning to ἀφορίζω, it is clearly a negative connotation, in this instance, as Peter’s withdrawal and separation is what initiates the dispute. This is different from Paul’s own use of the verb to describe his own calling as an apostle in the previous chapter. This lends credibility to the intended meaning of ἀφορίζω here as separate, withdraw, and divide. Peter’s action separates himself, a Jew, from the Gentiles, and causes a separation between those two types of Christ-believers, expressing itself in a halakhic dispute.

4.3. Fearing Those of the Circumcision

A brief note on the verb, φοβεω, used to describe Peter’s reaction to the ones who came from Jerusalem and Jacob’s representatives: The verb can have the meaning of being startled or to be afraid for the displeasure of others. Peter likely fears the displeasure that those from Jacob’s party would feel for his eating with the Gentiles, which Paul sees as hypocrisy. The implication behind this text is that at least some of the Christ-believers in Jerusalem under Jacob fell within the Pharisaic camp. Not only does Peter abandon Paul but also Barnabas and the other Jews. This might serve as a possible means of reading Torah for nomos in the latter passages. Essentially, if it became nearly a universal reaction among the Jews to retreat from Paul’s innovative commensality when seeing “those of the circumcision”, to the point of fearing them, it might mean that those people were Torah-enforcers of some kind. Here, there might be a double entendre of sorts. Those within the Pharisaic camp might assume their specific nomoi to have been part of the universal Jewish nomos, but those unaffiliated with the Pharisees would see them as specific only to the association of Pharisees. The comparison with extant comparative literature still stands in that the strict observance of ritual purity for table fellowship was not associated with writers of the time with the universal Jewish constitution but with the particular by-laws of the Pharisees.

Some have tried to read this passage socially and ascribing Peter as suffering from the problem of people-pleasing, i.e., wanting to maintain social convention with those from Jacob. Paul, however, does not follow social conventions due to his conviction in the announcement. The unique revelation of Jesus to him changed his perspective and his reorientation of his life and religious outlook after receiving “the gift” of the Gospel that the Nations were to receive salvation through the Messiah without circumcision. Many of his co-religionists in Galatia did not share this perspective and were concerned with pleasing those of the circumcision (Hardin 2014, p. 302).

4.4. Walking Uprightly to the Truth of the Announcement

This means that Peter’s actions are contrary to the heart of what Paul understands the unique message that he received, as he understood it, directly from the resurrected Jesus. It is for this reason that Paul feels emboldened to directly confront Peter, his superior in the movement, and scold him for his actions in Antioch. This is likely why he is mentioning the incident in his letter to the Galatians because his opponents might point to the authority of Jacob at Antioch and use this as a means to establish their own authority as representatives of the circumcised. This rejection of closed table fellowship and concerns about Gentile ritual purity were at the heart of the announcement (Nanos 2019, p. 4). It must have also had tremendous social importance for the Galatian Gentile believers who probably felt a great deal of insecurity about their own religious identities as former pagans but not Jews. Paul’s argumentation resembles later rabbinic arguments around hora’at sha’ah, the temporary suspension of Torah law, usually in individual cases, to preserve Jewish collective life.

Walking according to the truth of the announcement was an important concept for Paul and evokes language of Jewish law and custom, the halakhah, “walking” according to Torah mitzvot. Peter failed in his capabilities as a leader and “pillar” because he did not promote the stability of the community and promoted one group over another. Peter was wearing a mask, i.e., being a hypocrite, as the actors in Greco-Roman plays did and changed his social identity according to the audience (Nanos 2017, p. 43). Because Paul’s associations operated on a principle of equality (Gal. 3:28), Peter’s actions undermined that equality because the Gentiles would see Peter associating with the Jews and assume that they needed to be circumcised to be treated as community equals. The precedent for such radical equality was established in Greco-Roman Saturnalia banquets, as Lucian relates: “Let every man be treated equal, slave and freeman, poor and rich” (Sat. 13). These Greco-Roman social deviances might have been the source of the model of how to integrate members of different ethnicities into one association (Nanos 2017, p. 47).

4.5. Living in the Manner of the Nations vs. Judaizing

An important matter must be addressed at v. 14, which is the extent of Paul’s quotation and who he is quoting. Scacewater, among others, placed the quote only on v. 14, and in fact, his argument rests on that division of the quote (Scacewater 2013). Some see the extended comments from 2:14–17 to be a quotation of the men from Jacob, based on a reading of the verbs eidon and eipon as third-person verbs (Hultin 2013).

To “Judaize” was the inclination of Gentiles to live like Jews, (Gil Arbiol 2021) in this context with the further implication of then belonging to a chavurah and needing to accept the strict nomoi upon oneself, in addition to being obligated in the nomos of Moses. The use ἀφορίζω is interesting too and later used by Matthew when describing the coming of the son of man when the Gentiles will be “gathered” and “separated” from one another (Matt. 25:32) (Kowalski 2018). Perhaps the actions of Peter in “separating” himself also cut against the apocalyptic message of the assembly by beginning the separation before the coming of the son of man.

The language of compelling the Gentiles to follow the Jewish law is also reminiscent of the Hasmoneans who did the same to the Idumeans and Ituraeans.56 These peoples were required to be circumcised and observe Jewish law to be part of the Hasmonean kingdom. However, this compelling of the Gentiles to Judaize could be viewed negatively, preferring free choice in matters of observance.57

While not explicitly stated, it is implied that the actions of Peter resemble those of Paul’s opponents in the Galatian assembly. There would be no other reason to include this story, other than to use it as a parable of sorts to show what the heart of Paul’s message to the Nations is.

4.6. Paul’s Response

Regardless of how the text is divided, Paul eventually responds to the situation at Antioch and the party from Jacob’s views on circumcision for the Gentiles. Paul’s response is directed towards his Galatian opponents and has to do with the sociological implications of Peter’s actions. That is, the response in v. 14 is directed towards Peter and a shift of tone in vv. 15–21, which is directed at the Galatian Judaizers. The comment in v. 14 comments on Peter’s actions within the group and his hypocrisy. However, the following verses shift the focus to the overall Galatian concern about how to achieve salvation (Scacewater 2013, p. 309). Some, of course, see Paul’s statements here as explaining Paul’s abandonment of the Torah as an impossibility, even for Christ-believing Jews (Gombis 2007). However, this is not the only reading.

Paul then explains further the hypocrisy of Peter and the Jews. He contrasts himself, a Jew by nature, implicitly to the Gentile circumcised proselytes and the “sinners” of the Nations. Relying on Wishart’s analysis, I translate nomos as “custom” below, in this case, with an implication of the Pharisaic by-laws of the circumcision party.

2:15–21

We, by nature Jews, and not sinners of the nations, knowing that a man is not set right by the deeds of the custom, if by the trust of Jesus Christ58, also in Christ Jesus believed that we may be set right by the trust of Christ and not the deeds of the custom, because by the deeds of the custom shall not be set right any flesh. And if seeking to be set right in Christ, we were found to be sinners, then Christ [is] an agent of sin. Never may it be. For if the things I threw down, these again I build up, a transgressor I prove myself. For I through the custom for the custom died that to God I might live, with Christ I have been crucified and live no more do I, and Christ lives in me and that which I now live in the flesh through trust who loved me and gave himself for me. Not do I set aside the favor of God, for if justice is through the custom, then Christ died in vain.

4.7. Deeds of the Custom (Works of the Law)

Is the use of nomos here referring to the by-laws of a particular association or the “Jewish constitution”, i.e., the Torah, as mentioned by the Greco-Roman authors Philo and Josephus? In other words, Paul is not referring to universal Jewish nomoi, such as keeping the Shabbat or eating pure foods, but particular nomoi of the Pharisees, i.e., maintaining strict ritual purity. This is understood to be the case because of the regulations against Gentiles in early rabbinic material. If the issue had more clearly been around observing Shabbat or specifically around eating impure foods, then it might be clearly referring to the universal nomos of the Jews and not the particular nomos of the Pharisees.

Willitts thinks the issue behind Peter and Paul’s argument is a matter of halakhic interpretation, in which Paul criticizes Peter’s halakhic approach as inappropriate for the Christ-believing community and that Peter had adopted Pharisaic nomos (Willitts 2017). Paul’s comments in Gal. 1–2 reveal that there is a proper way to conduct one’s life under Christ-belief. The issue is one of “two regulative structures” (Barclay 2017, p. 368) Peter and Paul agree on a common announcement (evangelion) but disagree on the ability of that announcement to erase ethnic division and the new social realities implied by it. In this latter section, Paul is explaining how the announcement requires new halakhic analysis, a halakhah derived from Jesus’ revelation. This did not imply a schism in the movement or Paul’s abandonment of Judaism or Torah but, rather, a divergence of halakhic opinion, which is natural within the context of the interpretation of Jewish law (Zetterholm 2015). As a model, the Schools of Hillel and Shammai serve as a way of understanding the type of conflict here, which could be bitter and harsh, but did not imply the creation of two distinct religious bodies.

It might be claimed that given the context of meals, Paul could be subtly referencing the dietary practices of the Galatians vis-a-vis the laws of kashrut. However, there is nothing in the language used to justify extending the debate to issues of diet. The focus is on the identity of the people at the meal, which leads to issues of purity in Pharisaic nomoi. Therefore, by comparing the extant references to universal Jewish laws/customs, as found in the Torah, and particular Pharisaic laws/customs in their association by-laws, it seems most likely that Paul is referencing the latter, rather than the former.

The word ergon has a number of connotations. It is used quite literally to describe the building of synagogues, that is, the physical construction of the synagogue building (Price 2015). Or, in other contexts, it is associated with Jewish ritual law, particularly the violations of the sabbath, in Hebrew, (Back 2011). In other canonical books, it often refers to the work of Jesus in his mission and death on the cross.59 The New Perspective shifted the focus away from Reformation theological underpinnings and resituated the context of the debate around works of the law to its original Jewish context. It interpreted the works of the law as the unique qualities of Israel’s righteousness via a covenant with God (Dunn 1998, p. 355). That perspective looked to discoveries from Qumran to illuminate the meaning of the term, where the phrase was used in Hebrew to describe the purity laws, Sabbath laws and circumcision, and was interpreted as a means of showing allegiance to the Torah and to gain God’s favor (Tolmie 2004). However, after considering the differences between the universal Jewish constitution, Torah; and the Pharisaic-specific regulations, nomoi, we can postulate that ergon nomou refers to the separation that was intended by Pharisaic associations. This included separation from Gentiles, due to purity concerns, but also against Jews who did not live according to their stricter standards.

4.8. Dying to the Customs

Paul himself earlier described his own life in Ioudaismos. He says “I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors” (1:14, NRSV-UE). The traditions of my ancestors or fathers are distinct from the law. This is the language that Josephus uses to describe the Pharisees’ unique practices. This is what Paul “built up” before. His revelation of the announcement relates to the equality of Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Jesus. He claims that to rebuild those traditions would make him a sinner, relying on the language that the men from Jacob used to describe Peter.

In this case, Paul is criticizing the members of the circumcision party, who presumably taught that circumcision was required for membership in the Jesus movement (Acts 15:1). They are described by Luke as Pharisees, which implies both the acceptance of Mosaic legislation and Pharisaic by-laws in their associations. Here, Paul is saying that this is not required and that observing the scrupulous observances of the Pharisees will not help his Gentile followers. These people must have struggled with their own social identities and must have found circumcision very convincing, as it would have resolved their social, religious, and cultural ambiguous status. However, Paul says that they are “set right” by the “trust of Jesus Christ.” This recalls Fisch’s reading of Paul’s illumination of the Torah to the Nations as another facet of the divinely revealed Scripture, the torah of trust. The imagery of “dying” to the custom might be relying on concepts that death removes the obligation of Torah observance.60 Thus, Paul is saying that his immersion into Christ removed his obligations to the by-laws of the Pharisees, a group he once belonged to before his change of heart and belief in Jesus. The by-laws of the Pharisees do not bring about justice, according to Paul. This is to say that he is saying there is something fundamental that his opponents are missing about the appearance of Jesus in history, which was to create a new social equality in the local Jesus-believing assembly. His statement, “For I through the custom for the custom died that to God I might live, with Christ I have been crucified and live no more do I, and Christ lives in me and that which I now live in the flesh through trust who loved me and gave himself for me. Not do I set aside the favor of God, for if justice is through the custom, then Christ died in vain”, should be read in this context of Pharisaic nomoi. Given the context of the discussion around table fellowship and the implicit concern about the ritual impurity of Gentiles and the possible issues that could arise through their interaction with food or drink at the banquet, the context of Pharisaic nomoi is heavily implied. Paul claims that he was a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5–6; as does Luke-Acts in Acts 22:3), and there is little reason to doubt him, although there is reason to doubt that he trained under Gamaliel, one of the chief of the Pharisees as claimed by Luke-Acts. However, he would have been intimately familiar with these regulations and conducted his life in a manner consistent with them. It is within this context that he experienced the revelation of Jesus, likely interpreting it as a confirmation of his faith in the resurrection. However, his calling to be an apostle to the Nations conflicted with his Pharisaic training and the customs he observed as a member of that group. These customs made it impossible for him to engage in the announcement to the Nations because of the ritual impurity imparted by contact with the Nations. Therefore, he had to shed the Pharisaic customs, to die to them, to be able to become the apostle to the Nations. These statements might be read as exaggeration or hyperbolic in nature, as previous statements in Galatians 1:14 have been read by some, (Tolmie 2004, p. 61; Dunn 1993) which could be seen within a broader context of Paul’s use of Greco-Roman rhetorical style in his letters (Pawlak 2021; McClane 1998).

5. Conclusions

Paul’s letter to the Galatians is often used within paradigms of understanding the Apostle to cancel his membership in Second Temple Judaism, due to the strong statements that he makes regarding the nomos. However, considering the many variant ways that this word was understood at the time, we can see how this is not necessarily the case. I have proposed a reading of Galatians with the by-laws of the Pharisaic associations in mind. This leads to a much more localized reading of the social conflicts in Antioch, and presumably Galatia, as Paul relates the story of Antioch to convey meaning to the Galatians who must be experiencing similar behavior from the Jewish believers in their midst.

This research proposes that there was a localized conflict at Antioch between differing associations with their own by-laws (no’oi). If Acts’ record is to be considered historical, the members of Jacob’s association who promoted circumcision were also Pharisees, who assembled together in their own chavurot, to eat communal meals and observe the laws of purity and tithing more carefully than the common population– as evidenced by Philo and Josephus’ lack of any mention of these regulations in their discussion of the nomos. Peter’s actions reveal a “separatist”-like mentality and deference to the Pharisaic by-laws, over Paul’s association’s by-laws, which did not require circumcision or observance of tithing and purity regulations like the Pharisees.

Therefore, the association culture of the day would have led to a number of small-scale conflicts, perhaps driven by personality, as in this case. There would have been differences of opinion on the exact nature of the by-laws in each association. Second, the universal nomos of Moses was considered different from local by-laws by outsiders, such as Philo and Josephus, who do not envision a universal observance of Pharisaic by-laws, but perhaps the Pharisees themselves had already begun to equate their own by-laws with the nomos of Moses, as would later be completed in the Mishnah.