Galatians 2:11-14

            I encourage you to read Galatians 2:11-14 at this time.

Tolmie thinks that 2:11-21 recounts Paul’s version of the incident at Antioch in order to show how he stood firmly for the truth of the gospel. Many others would concur with him. It constitutes the third defense Paul offers of his apostleship and of his gospel, that he personally confronted Peter at Antioch. I will present this segment in two sections, but mindful that they may well constitute one flow of thought.

Lightfoot takes this passage as occurring immediately after the “apostolic congress” in Acts 15:30-45. This would seem likely to many other scholars as well.

            In verse 11, Betz says that Cephas stands between Torah and freedom, and therefore is self-condemned. Luther stresses that one must always stand up for the truth.

“For defending the truth in our day, we are called proud and obstinate hypocrites. We are not ashamed of these titles. The cause we are called to defend, is not Peter’s cause, or the cause of our parents, or that of the government, or that of the world, but the cause of God.”

            In verse 12, Betz says that the term “drew back” refers to the military tactic of withdrawal. In “keeping himself separate,” Peter followed Jewish ways when they were present. Paul says Peter did his out of fear, pleasing people rather than his own conscience. Lightfoot notes that the people to whom Paul refers are from the Jerusalem church.  They may have come invested with some power as James.  Chrysostom seems right in suggesting that the disciples in Jerusalem continued to practice circumcision among Jews, not seeing it as practical to make such a radical break with the Law. It did not serve the larger missionary strategy. However, it also appears that they early recognized that one should not require this practice among Gentiles. In fact, the account of the council in Acts 15:5 identifies the opponents of Paul as those who had converted from the sect of the Pharisees to following Christ.

            Separation at the agape meal, which symbolized Christian fellowship, was serious indeed. It might be helpful to provide some textual background for this quite Jewish concern. The Letter of Aristeas (Second Century BC) articulates the reason for such separation, namely, to prevent Jews being perverted by contact with others or by mixing with bad influences, for Moses hedged them in on all side by the Law. In Jubilees 22:16, we read the admonition, “Eat not with them … for their works are unclean.” Such texts remind us that any religion rooted in the clean and unclean establishes barriers between those who are “clean” and those who are not. Such Law separates by its nature. In fact, the vision that Luke records in Acts 10, a vision Peter received concerning unclean foods, reflects how deeply embedded such separation can come. One way to read the passage is that even after spending so much time with Jesus, it took a revelation from God in a dream to convince Peter that what God has made is not unclean.

Luther stresses in all of this that Paul opposes Peter, not because Peter was malicious, but because he was inconsistent in the application of principle. All of this is a reminder, I think, of the difficulties involved in overcoming culturally embedded prejudices toward anything.

            In verse 13, the rest of the Jewish converts are referred to.  Barnabas was “led astray” by emotions. This incident with Barnabas may have prepared the way for the later separation.  Paul expresses sympathy and regret. It probably affected Paul more than anything else mentioned in this passage.