In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul Confronts Peter in Antioch--Why It Matters to Us
The Cave Church of Saint Peter in Antioch
From the Blessed Hope Podcast (Episode Four, Galatians 2:11-21)
The Success of the Gentile Mission Raised Questions
As new churches were established in Gentile areas north of Palestine, one pressing question needed to be addressed. How were Jews and Gentiles to get along with one another in these new churches? This was especially the case in Asia Minor where Jews lived in many cities among large Gentile populations. Jewish Christians remained steeped in Jewish life and culture. No doubt, they struggled with the fact that recent Gentile converts had different sexual mores, ate things Jews did not, and who, when pressed about matters of the law may have asked, “who is this Moses fellow you keep talking about?” How would close fellowship between Jewish believers and “unclean” Gentiles in Galatia and Antioch be seen back in Jerusalem? The dicey relationship between Jew and Gentile meant that a collision between the weak-willed Peter and the iron-willed Paul was at some point inevitable. In verses 11-14, Paul demonstrates that even apostles must have their doctrine and conduct checked in the light of Scripture, specifically the revelation of Jesus about the gospel.
Moving on from recounting his second post-conversion visit to Jerusalem, Paul tells the Galatians how he was forced to confront Peter to his face when the latter had caved in to pressure from messengers from James possibly claiming they were sent by the Jerusalem church. This confrontation likely occurred not long after Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch after their prior visit to Jerusalem. As N. T. Wright points out, it is easy to overlook the fact that the reason why this seems so vivid in Paul’s account is because these events had taken place quite recently [1].
There is a noticeable progression in Paul’s recounting of his relationship with Peter, especially in light of the burgeoning Gentile mission undertaken by Paul, Barnabas, and others. Paul describes being Peter’s guest for fifteen days during his first trip to Jerusalem post-conversion (Galatians 1:18-20). Then, he speaks of Peter as a fellow apostle when recounting his second trip to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-10), before, finally, describing a confrontation with Peter when the latter falls into serious doctrinal error (Galatians 2:11-14).[2] While it is difficult to know how much of this is a word for word account of what Paul said to Peter and how much is a summation, what follows amounts to a major confrontation between the two men over the ground and meaning of the doctrine of justification.
The Men from James
We know from Luke’s account in Acts that Gentiles and Jews previously enjoyed table fellowship together in Antioch (where Paul and Peter later have their confrontation). Both groups participated in the Lord’s Supper as one body, with Peter apparently approving of the practice. In Acts 10:9-48, we read of Peter’s vision and visit to the Gentile Cornelius’ home, where the Holy Spirit told Peter that “all foods were clean.” From these events Peter concluded, “truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34). As recounted by Luke, the Gentiles were baptized and received the Holy Spirit, just as occurred with the Jewish believers. At first Peter saw Jew and Gentile on an equal footing before God.[3] A common faith in Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and the Son of God who died for their sins who was then raised from the dead produced a remarkable fellowship between Jew and Gentile, who, otherwise would have little if anything to do with each other. That is, until “certain men came from James.”
Professor Bruce thinks these men “from James” who arrived in Antioch were trying to convince the Jewish brothers of something along the lines of “we in Jerusalem hear that those of you in Antioch are in the habit of practicing regular table fellowship with Gentiles.” This practice was causing great concern among the Jewish brethren in Jerusalem who feared such close associations might make efforts to evangelize Jews much more difficult. This was also a time of increasing Jewish militancy against their Roman occupiers. About this time, the Romans crucified several prominent leaders of the zealots in Palestine. With such tensions in the air, any Jews, including Peter, who fraternized with Gentiles and adopted Gentile ways were increasingly seen by the fellow Jews as traitors, fraternizing with godless and unclean Gentiles.[4]
Under such circumstances we can see why men like James, Peter, Barnabas, and the Jewish believers in Antioch, would be greatly troubled by too close an association with Gentiles. The churches had enjoyed a time of peace and numerical growth, but now trouble was brewing. The Jerusalem church was worried. The issue at hand was not simply a question of how Gentiles join the church–through faith in Israel’s Messiah, not by embracing Jewish customs and practices as claimed by New Perspective on Paul [NPP] proponents.[5] Since NPP advocates understand the matter as a question of “who is in the church?” the answer given is that all believers are children of Abraham, including Gentiles. Therefore it is wrong for the agitators to seek to exclude Gentiles merely on ethnic and cultural grounds.
Rather, the underlying issue was the question of how Jews understood the role of human effort in justification. How were Jewish believers to relate to those Gentiles who are fellow believers in Jesus and who were already members of Christ’s church. Specifically, must Jewish Christians engage in table fellowship with Gentile Christians if such Gentiles did not regard the performance of works of law as necessary for justification? The issue is clearly one of soteriology (how people are made right with God?) and only secondarily ecclesiology (should ethnic and cultural differences be used to exclude Gentiles?)
We do know that on those occasions when it was necessary for James to make a decision about whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to be justified, James comes down on the side of Gentile justification sola fide (Acts 11:1-18; and Acts 15).[6] Yet increasing ethnic and racial tensions was a matter of concern on the part of Jewish Christians, which meant that too much fraternizing with Gentile Christians would make it difficult for the Jerusalem church to support the Gentile mission.
Peter Caves In — Paul Confronts Him
Because of the pressure which the men from James were able to exert upon him, Peter withdrew from table fellowship with Gentiles. Peter even talked the otherwise reliable Barnabas into doing the same. But as Paul sees it, Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentiles exposed a serious misunderstanding of the gospel. Paul charges that Peter’s decision was motivated by “fear.” Paul even describes Peter’s and Barnabas’ actions as hypocritical, using the term (hypokrisis), which literally means “play-acting,” pointing to Peter’s lack of courage in standing up to the pressure to distance himself from the Gentile believers.[7] Peter said one thing before the men from James arrived (it is okay to eat with Gentiles), but did the opposite after (he withdrew from table fellowship). Fear of confrontation was an unfortunate personality trait which Peter manifested previously at our Lord’s trial before Caiaphus. According to Matthew 26:69–70, “now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came up to him and said, `You also were with Jesus the Galilean.’ But he denied it before them all, saying, `I do not know what you mean.’” In Galatia, Peter caves in because of his fear of the “men from James.”
Paul does not give us many specifics. Whether Peter was afraid that his actions would compromise missionary efforts to the Jews (possible), or if he was afraid of being ostracized by others in the Jerusalem church (possible), or even if he was afraid of bodily harm from Jews who wanted to eliminate all contact with Gentiles (not as likely), is not quite clear. We are only told that because of external pressure, Peter ceased table fellowship with Gentiles, when as Paul says, Peter had previously lived like a Gentile.
This was not a personality conflict between Paul and Peter, as critical scholars often claim.[8] The dispute was about the ground of the Gentile mission; the doctrine of justification by faith, apart from works. This is why, in verse 11, Paul says that Peter’s conduct “was not in step with the truth of the gospel,” an indication that Peter’s actions amounted to a reversal of the position he previously took in Antioch. Peter’s hypocritical play-acting was a “defection or deviation from that truth.”[9] This was no small matter which explains why Paul opposed Peter (anthistemi) “to his face,” before them all (i.e., before the church). Withdrawing from table fellowship with the Gentiles amounts to acting contrary to “the truth of the gospel.” Says Paul “`if you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Peter’s withdrawal from the “uncircumcised” was causing division between Jew and Gentile, based upon confusion about the relationship of faith and works. Since this issue involved error which effected the preaching of the gospel, the mistaken notion that one must be circumcised to be ceremonially clean, it could not be handled privately as required in Matthew 18:15-20.
The issue then, is that messengers from James convinced Peter to avoid contact with Gentiles (even at table fellowship) because too close an association with Gentile Christians would cause problems for Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and elsewhere.[10] Assuming the best of motives on the part of James and Peter, they were concerned that such close ties between Jew and Gentile would have a negative effect upon the evangelism of Jews. But Paul sees things much differently. What does withdrawing from Gentiles say to them about their status in the church, especially with the Gentile mission well under way? As T. David Gordon notes, “the concern of the entire letter is, in many ways, the concern of Paul’s entire ministry, since Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles.”[11] Paul is the missionary to the Gentiles, who now find themselves being told by Judiazers that they must be circumcised, and live like Jews. If Peter and Barnabas were confused about this, then Paul must address head on the doctrine of justification with clarity and force because Paul knows full well that what Peter had done in Antioch would be used by the Judaizers in Galatia as proof that Gentiles who become Christians must live as cultural Jews in order to be justified before God.
The Issue of Table Fellowship
If the best interpretation of these events is that the matter of believing Jewish believers ceasing from engaging in table fellowship with Gentile believers in Antioch is undermining the gospel as preached by Paul, giving ammunition to the Judaizers in Galatia, then this is not a case of Paul arguing that Jewish Christians cannot deny Gentiles entrance into the church on the basis of the so-called “ethnic badges” of Judaism as NPP folk erroneously contend. Jews denying table fellowship to Gentiles may not be the issue underlying Paul’s doctrine of justification, but Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile believers is the occasion for Paul to explain what justification means and what it properly entails. This sounds like a minor point, but it is hugely important because NPP advocates see this dispute (in the first of Paul’s letters) to be determinative of how we should understand all that Paul will subsequently say about justification.[12]
On the Old Perspective on Paul view, when confronting Peter, Paul raises the doctrine of justification by faith to remind Jews that they, as well as the Gentiles, have been made right before God, solely on the basis of faith in Christ, not “works of law” (i.e., acts of obedience done in conformity to the law of Moses). All believers (Jew and Gentile) presently possess a right-standing before God because the guilt of sin has been paid for by Christ in his suffering upon the cross, and that all believers are now regarded as righteous before God (whether they be circumcised or not) because Christ’s righteousness is now theirs through faith (not circumcision). If true, on what basis should Jews withdraw from fellow justified sinners? There is no reason to do so without undermining the gospel Paul had been preaching to the Gentiles.
This conflict reinforces Paul’s prior point; the gospel is not something which he made up, but was revealed to him personally by Jesus, and then confirmed by the pillars of the church, Peter, James, and John in Paul’s meetings with them and then later by the Jerusalem Council. Paul’s challenge to Peter reminds us that the critical issue is not so much “who” is preaching, but “what” is being preached. Even the apostle Peter must be confronted when he falls into doctrinal error. Fortunately, Paul rescues Peter from very serious consequences including condemnation from the brothers because of his own hypocrisy.[13] By the time of the Jerusalem Council, held shortly after Paul composes his Galatian letter, Peter and James are both in agreement with Paul. The issue is the content of what is preached (justification by faith alone), and the standard is fidelity to the gospel revealed by Jesus.
That is why Paul’s confrontation of Peter in Antioch matters
________________________________________
[1] Wright, Galatians, 109.
[2] Fung, Galatians, 104-105.
[3] B. B. Blue, “Food Offered to Idols and Jewish Food Laws” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 307.
[4] Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, 130.
[5] Wright, Galatians, 62.
[6] Moo, Galatians, 147-148.
[7] Fung, Galatians, 109.
[8] Moo, Galatians, 146.
[9] Fung, Galatians, 109.
[10] Moo, Galatians, 147-148.
[11] T. David Gordon, “Abraham and Sinai Contrasted in Galatians 3:6-14,” in Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and David Van Drunen, eds., The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant, (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishers, 2009), 243.
[12] According to Wright, “the opening four verses of the section [Galatians 2:11-14] are crucial for understanding the argument of the whole letter.” Wright, Galatians, 109.
[13] Moo, Galatians, 145.