Galatians #23

GALATIANS # 23
4/04/11
The incident in Antioch
Paul’s confrontation of Peter
Chapter 2: 11 - 15

Title : The Holy Bible, King James Version
Edition : Third
Copyright : Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.

Galatians 2:11-15 ( KJV )
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

This passage has caused some heated discussion among those who believe Peter occupies a position of pre-eminence based on:

Title : The Holy Bible, King James Version
Edition : Third
Copyright : Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.

Matthew 16:17-19 ( KJV )
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

BibleGateway.com provides a couple of examples:
Galatians 2 - IVP New Testament Commentaries
The Conflict in Antioch
How could such a conflict occur between Paul and Peter after they had reached an agreement to support one another? Some early church leaders (Origen, Chrysostom and Jerome) could not believe that this conflict really occurred. They explained that Paul and Peter must have staged the conflict to illustrate the issues at stake. Augustine, however, interpreted the story as a genuine conflict in which Paul established the higher claim of the truth of the gospel over the rank and office of Peter.

Augustine was right. Paul was willing to endure the pain of conflict with Peter in order to defend the truth of the gospel. To understand the nature of the conflict and the issues involved, we will observe how the drama developed in four stages: (1) Peter's practice of eating with the Gentile Christians, (2) Peter's separation from Gentile Christians after the arrival of the delegation from James because of his fear of the circumcision group, (3) the separation of the other Jewish Christians from Gentile Christians because of Peter's influence, and (4) Paul's rebuke. Peter's Practice of Eating with the Gentile Christians (2:12)

Other Catholic scholars even questioned whether this “Peter” was the Apostle Peter – it is problematic to the doctrine of Peter’s preeminence; for Peter to be subservient to anyone undermines the doctrine of Papal supremacy, a pillar of the Catholic church…

This confrontation was inevitable; the radical message which Jesus coming had wrought, and Paul was now preaching, was so different than what the Jews “traditions” had come to believe it was/would be; it shook the foundations of their entire religious tradition, Jesus had already confronted the Pharisees(Mat. 23:13).

In addition to this ingrained “tradition” devised by them as they wandered away from its origin recorded by the prophet Malachi (3: 16-18), the political/social/religious/economic world they were living in was about to explode. Many factors were coming to a head - These were extremely dangerous, turbulent times.

Luke tells us that after they sent Saul back to Tarsus (Acts9: 32) “then the churches had rest “. Yet, Acts goes on to tell us that a few years later, Herod has James the brother of John executed, arrests Peter with the intention of killing him “because it pleased the Jews” (Acts 12: 3 ).
The believers in Jerusalem had continued to diligently keep all the Jewish food, feast days, Sabbath and circumcision requirements, participating in temple worship, continuing to be a part of the Jewish community. This adherence to the customs and traditions had caused the Jews to tolerate them - James the brother of Jesus, was widely admired and respected, he was known as “James the Just” throughout the community, by both Jews and Christians.
.
What had happened to upset this relationship? Why did Herod’s actions please the Jews?
A monumental event had taken place which had world changing consequences. Acts chapter 10 records that only a short time before this, Peter had brought the first gentiles into the Jerusalem church (Paul had probably brought some in and there were probably gentile members of the Antioch church, but these were all out in the hinterland…”out of sight – out of mind” and hadn’t yet came to the full attention of the Jerusalem community).

On returning to Jerusalem, Peter was severely challenged by the church leadership, who reluctantly, after much discussion, conceded to their membership – but, so far as we know, didn’t welcome them into communion with the Jerusalem church; we hear nothing further about Cornelius after the story of his conversion and baptism…

A number of forces were coinciding at this point in history that threatened the Jews relationship – even their existence- in the Roman world. Roman society was unraveling under the rule of a series of insane and/or inept rulers and with that, the stability of society was weakened; This contributed to the special exemption from the religious strictures given the Jews being jeopardized and threatened. With all the unrest and threat to the Jews, the Pharisee and Sadducee leaders were defensive and uneasy; the Zealots were inflamed and determined.
The adherence to the law was the defining characteristic of what constituted a Jew. Without these “markers” the Jews identity would be lost; they would be absorbed into the general population and would disappear as a distinct group of people – the Zealots were not only determined to overthrow the Romans but also to not let the Jewish culture die. Strict adherence and observance of the law was absolutely enforced. Some of them carried daggers which could be concealed in a cloak sleeve, then in a crowded gathering, quickly drawn and plunged into a collaborator, with no one seeing it done. All Jews were very careful around the Zealots – even feared them.

Aside from this, the Jews retained their special privileges as “Jews” defined by careful adherence to the Mosaic Law, thus the leaders did not want anything to interfere with that relationship – such as bringing in gentiles without requiring them to become full Jews, marked by circumcision. Peter, with the baptism of Cornelius and his family had barged right into the middle of all this intrigue and danger. This inclusion of un-converted gentiles into the Jewish community was undoubtedly one of the main reasons Herod’s persecution “pleased the Jews”. If Herod hadn’t died shortly after this the persecution of the Jerusalem church would have likely intensified.

We don’t know where Peter went when he fled, but he was back in Jerusalem when Paul made the famine relief trip (last lesson) and then Paul tells us that Peter came to Antioch. From the wording he had been there for awhile: “For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision”

These who “came from James” were probably sent to convey a message cautioning the Antioch church to back off on their embracing gentiles with no inclusion of requirements of the Mosaic Law –the crises had arrived! As a “pillar” of the Jerusalem church, Peter’s “fear” was an automatic reaction he didn’t want to alienate the establishment – both Jewish and fellow Jerusalem Christians. Additionally, he didn’t want to exacerbate the growing tension between the Roman rulers and the Jewish community.

After Herod’s death the Romans assigned a Roman procurator to rule Judea. During the period after Herod’s death, leading up to Paul and Peter’s confrontation, there had been six distinct uprisings with thousands of Jewish rebels killed – the pressure was becoming almost unbearable!

Paul does not tell us what happened next. Did Peter meekly yield to Paul? We don’t know, however, we being “southern Galatianers” believe Peter did concede to Paul as shown by his defense of Paul at the Jerusalem Conference. (Acts 15) The Jerusalem council arrived at a consensus wherein Peter and the other leaders agreed and endorsed Paul’s Gospel(though some were not persuaded and continued to cause problems) Peter’s endorsement of Paul in His letter written several years later. (2Peter 3: 15) fully embraces Paul’s teachings.

DISCUSSION

1. What precipitated Paul’s rebuke of Peter?
2. Why did Peter act this way?
3. Who were the men “from James”?
4. How did the conversion of Cornelius play into all this?
5. What happened after Herod’s sudden death?
6. How was it all resolved?