154 Rainer Reuter with demands from the gentiles neither circumcision nor obedience of the law. This principle attested in the Jerusalem conference (Gal 2,1-10) was already practiced in Antiochian table fellowship (Gal 2,12). Paul’s message to his addressees is clear: gentile Christians do not need circum- cision and Torah observance to obtain salvation, and this is an apostolic consensus.25 In this context the Antioch story functions as the final and the main argument26 of his independence. The issue of the freedom from the law was a so important consequence of the gospel, that Paul fought for it against other apostolic authorities27 – most probably with success.28 Paul addressed Peter because he saw that the Jewish Christians in An- tioch were not acting in the spirit of the gospel. They did not go towards the truth of the gospel (Gal 2,14: πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου), a phrase that is better translated as “consequences of the gospel”.29 From Paul’s viewpoint Peter –and others with him– had withdrawn from their theological basis.30 Therefore Paul reminds Peter of their common theo- logical foundation. Their common ground as Christian Jews is not any more Judaism, where both of them have their roots (Gal 2,15). Instead, their common ground is the knowledge (Gal 2,16: εἰδότες) that justi- fication is not provided through fulfilling the Torah (Gal 2,16: οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου)31 but by means of accepting Christ (διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ).32 Paul seems to quote in Gal 2,16 a well known formula which was obviously a conclusion drawn from the Gospel.33 25 That Paul told the Antioch story not only for defending his apostleship and his gospel but at the same time with regard to the situation in Galatia is pointed out by R. Bring, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Berlin / Hamburg 1968) 80. 26 As the strongest argument this episode is put at the end of this section. Concerning the rhetorical conventions placing the arguments cf. F. Siegert, Argumentation bei Paulus gezeigt an Röm 9-11 (WUNT 34, Tübingen 1985) 83-84. Because the ἔπειτα-sequence ends with Gal 2,1 (against Becker, Galater 38), it can’t be presupposed that Paul keeps the chronological order here. So the Antioch incident most probably has happened before the so called apostolic council mentioned in Gal 2,1-10. Cf. among others G. Lüdemann, Paulus, der Heidenapostel, Band I: Studien zur Chronologie (FRLANT 123, Göttingen 1980) 77-79.101-105. 27 Although Peter was the main opponent, Paul also resisted Barnabas and –indirectly – James. 28 Cf. among others Bring, Galater 80.81. If the conflict wouldn’t have been solved by Paul’s intervention, he hardly could have argued with it in Galatians. 29 Cf. Mußner, Galaterbrief 111 n. 58 “logic of the gospel”. 30 Cf. Betz, Galatians 109.111. 31 With regard to the meaning of this expression cf. Betz, Galatians 116. 32 The genitive construction Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ explains here, what πίστις means. Cf. Lührmann, Galater 43.54. Cf. also D. Lührmann, Glaube im frühen Christentum (Güters- loh 1976) 53: in the Pauline writings in most cases πίστις means the ‘belief in God who provided salvation through death and resurrection of Jesus’. 33 Betz, Galatians 115 correctly takes Gal 2,15-16 as a “’self-definition’ of Jewish Chris- tians”.