Skip to main content

Paul's Argument in Galatians 2:11-14

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV)

Here we have the last of Paul's vignettes about his relationship with the church in Jerusalem. Antioch was in Syria and had a very large Jewish population and a significant number of non-Jews who were interested in Judaism and attached themselves in varying degrees to the Jewish synagogues. In all probability, when Christianity came to Antioch, it gained converts of mixed ethnic backgrounds. What's amazing is that the church initially seemed to thrive and did not have Jew/Gentile conflict, especially if they abandoned Jewish food laws. You would expect that it would have been difficult for the (most likely) Jewish majority to give up those distinctives, but it appears that it was not an issue for quite some time.

When Peter arrived at Antioch he went along with the existing practice. He ate at the same table with Gentiles and ate whatever they ate without any resistance. When men from James came, Peter's actions changed. What did the men from James have to say that changed Peter's actions? That's a complicated issue and deserves a post in its own right, so be looking for one soon. At any rate, the central issue here is that Peter acted as a hypocrite in his separation from the Gentiles. One key thing to note is that the Hypocrisei,' the Greek word rendered hypocrite, doesn't mean that Peter 'did something other than what he professed to believe.' It really means something along the lines of 'pretended' (Dunn 125, Fee makes the same point). He acted contrary to what he knew was the truth of the gospel, that Jews and Gentiles were on equal footing and both children of Abraham and heirs of the promise because of the work of Christ on the cross alone. That is why Paul can used such strong language in verse 11. Peter and James knew what the truth of the gospel was, but the message they sent through their actions was that only those who lived like Jews could be part of the people of God. 'For if Gentiles are forced to "live like Jews" on any matter that is based merely on Torah, then the theological result is that their salvation rests ultimately on "doing Torah" not on grace' (Fee 73). Thus Peter stood condemned (and presumably James too).

It's important to notice that Paul never tells us that Peter repented or changed his position. It seems that there was a rift between Paul and Peter (this seems to be smoothed over by Acts 21:17-25?). Thus, Peter's withdrawal at Antioch was probably used by the Teachers in Galatia to support the necessity of the Galatians coming under the Law and to paint Paul in a negative light. Paul told his side of the story so that the Galatians would see that Paul had actually been in the right.

I think that we need to ask then , why did Paul tell us about the meeting in Gal. 2:1-10? What was the point (thanks to danny for raising this question in the comments of my post on the dating of Galatians)? First, he uses it to show that Peter and James were acting against their principles. In theory they agreed with Paul even though they subsequently pursued a different course. I also think that Paul includes it because it sets up this section. The behavior of Peter and James looks much more problematic in light of the previous agreement. This is especially true if we are to identify the meeting in Galatians 2 with the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 because even the issue of dietary restrictions had already been decided.


Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…