Galatians
Page 9
13. Rom 12:3; 15:15; 1 Cor 3:10; Eph 3:2, 7–8.
14. See Rom 11:13; 2 Cor 3:6–9; 4:1; 5:18; 1 Tim 1:12.
15. See Acts 15:13–29. Hegesippus (AD 110–180) and Clement of Alexandria (150–215) both describe James as the first bishop of Jerusalem.
16. Rom 12:4–8; 1 Cor 12:4–11; Eph 4:7, 11–16; 1 Pet 4:10–11.
17. Second Vatican Council, Unitatis Redintegratio 3.
Confrontation at Antioch
Galatians 2:11–14
The final section of Paul’s autobiographical argument reports a dramatic turn of events. After recounting how the Jerusalem leaders had recognized Paul’s ministry, approved his †gospel, and formed a partnership with him for the preaching of the gospel, Paul now informs his readers about a public confrontation between Peter (Cephas) and himself that took place in the church of Antioch. It would be easy to imagine Paul choosing not to disclose a public disagreement with the most prominent leader in the early Church, lest it seem to undermine his side of the argument. But it is an indication of Paul’s self-confidence that he not only tells the story but also insists that Peter was in the wrong and he was in the right. To defend his understanding of the necessary and practical implications of the gospel, Paul does not refrain from criticizing the conduct of the most authoritative apostle. Instead, he makes use of the occasion to introduce his doctrine of †justification.
The Confrontation with Peter (2:11–14)
11And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. 12For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. 13And the rest of the Jews [also] acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
NT: Acts 10:28–29; 11:2–18; 15:1; 1 Tim 1:5; James 3:17; 1 Pet 2:1
Catechism: Peter and the papacy, 880–82
Figure 9. St. Peter’s Church in Antioch. [Volkan Hatem, CC BY SA 3.0 / Wikimedia Commons]
[2:11]
Paul has been recounting a series of events linked by repetition of the word “then” (1:18, 21; 2:1). The sequence, however, is interrupted in verse 11: But when Cephas came to Antioch . . .1 The rest of the sentence reveals Paul’s temperament: he is not the kind of leader who is afraid of conflict. Paul did not criticize Peter’s conduct behind his back but rather had the courage to confront him to his face. Peter’s importance in the Church is implicitly acknowledged by the fact that his conduct matters so much. Paul is not shy in recounting his own audacious response but gives a strong reason for it: Cephas clearly was wrong. Other translations capture better a nuance of the Greek: “he stood condemned” (RSV) or “self-condemned” (NRSV). The sense is not quite that of a judicial condemnation, but it has an analogous meaning.
BIBLICAL BACKGROUND
The Church of Antioch
Antioch, located three hundred miles north of Jerusalem on the Orontes River near the Mediterranean coast (in present-day Turkey), was the leading city of the Roman province of Syria and third-largest city in the empire after Rome and Alexandria. This Antioch, which was distinct from other cities bearing the name, including Antioch in Pisidia where Paul and Barnabas evangelized on their first mission (Acts 13:14–52), was an important center of early Christianity.
Acts of the Apostles reports that Jewish Christians fled to Antioch during the persecution that followed the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 11:19). There they proclaimed the †gospel to Jews and, for the first time on a wide scale, to †Gentiles, who warmly welcomed the message. To care for the large number of new converts in Antioch, the church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas, who in turn went to Tarsus to invite Paul (then called Saul) to come and assist him. It was in Antioch that disciples of Jesus were first called Christians (Acts 11:19–26). It was from Antioch that Paul set out on what would later be called his three missionary journeys (Acts 13:1–3; 15:35–41; 18:22–23).
[2:12–13]
Paul now explains the situation. His criticism concerns a change of behavior on Peter’s part that had negative consequences. The issue was whether Jewish Christians would share meals with †Gentile Christians. In order to maintain †ritual purity, Jews normally abstained from eating with non-Jews. Acts 10 alludes to this practice. Having entered the home of Cornelius, a non-Jew, Peter states, “You know that it is unlawful for a Jewish man to associate with, or visit, a Gentile.” Then he adds, “But God has shown me that I should not call any person profane or unclean. And that is why I came without objection when sent for” (Acts 10:28–29). When Peter returned to Jerusalem, some of the Jewish believers confronted him, saying, “You entered the house of uncircumcised people and ate with them” (11:2–3). In fact, while the †law of Moses says that certain foods (such as pork) cannot be eaten, nothing in it explicitly forbids Jews from eating with Gentiles, but Jewish traditions did. A Jewish writing from around the second century BC depicts Abraham instructing Jacob,
Separate yourself from the gentiles,
and do not eat with them,
and do not perform deeds like theirs.
And do not become associates of theirs.
Because their deeds are defiled,
and all of their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable.2
The problem of sharing meals was not identical with that of circumcision, which Paul talked about in the preceding paragraph (Gal 2:1–10), for this was a question of imposing a requirement on converted Gentiles. Here the question is how Jewish Christians should conduct their relationships with Gentile Christians.
Figure 10. Etching of St. Peter and St. Paul in a fourth-century catacomb. [Public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
When Peter first came to Antioch, he used to eat with the Gentiles. Apparently, that was not a problem for him (Acts 10:28–29). But then some Jewish Christians who were associated with James arrived from Jerusalem, although Paul does not say James sent them. From the context we understand that these new arrivals were committed to a strict observance of Jewish traditions, including not eating with Gentiles to avoid impurity, traditions that Peter himself had observed prior to his experience at the house of Cornelius (Acts 11:2–3). Now Peter found himself facing a difficult choice: he was afraid of the circumcised, probably meaning “the circumcision faction” (NRSV), those who continued to think that Gentile Christians should be circumcised.3 If he continued eating with Gentile Christians, he would lose the trust of this faction in Jerusalem and perhaps arouse their opposition to the Gentile mission. He chose to avoid these potential difficulties, at least for the time being: he began to draw back and separated himself from meals with Gentiles. Peter’s choice was based not on doctrine but on pragmatic grounds. It had, however, significant repercussions, since the other Jewish Christians of the church in Antioch began to imitate his practice. Even Barnabas, Paul’s mission partner in evangelizing Gentiles, was carried away in this bad direction. The result was a division of the church of Antioch into two groups, Jewish and Gentile. The Gentile Christians would soon get the impression that to avoid being regarded as unclean and to be able to share meals with Jewish Christians, their older brothers and sisters in the †faith, they needed to submit to Jewish observances. Alternatively, the church in Antioch would be divided into Jewish and Gentile communities, undermining the unity of the new humanity in Christ (Gal 3:28).
Paul refused to tolerate this situation. He recognized the behavior of Peter and his imitators as a pretense, as dishonest. Peter was concealing his convictions and acting as though he shared the ideas of the strict party of Jewish Christians who were aligned with James. Paul speaks of hypocrisy, using a Greek word that refers to pretending something that is not true. Sincerity
is an important Christian virtue commended in the writings of Peter, James, and Paul (1 Tim 1:5; James 3:17; 1 Pet 2:1), and Jesus himself denounces hypocrisy in the Gospels (e.g., Matt 23).
[2:14]
Paul sees more than a mere human failing here. He recognizes that Peter’s conduct is not consistent with the truth of the gospel. It leaves room for a practice to arise that is dangerous to the †faith, a division between Jewish and Gentile Christians on the false grounds that the latter remain unclean (Acts 10:28; 15:9). Therefore he intervenes forcefully, reproving Cephas in public in order to put an end to the pretense.
Paul’s penchant for antithesis and paradox is reflected in his words to Peter. The contrast between Jew and Gentile is emphasized by the alternation of terms: If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? Paul thus highlights the contradiction in Peter’s behavior. To express the contrast more sharply, Paul compresses the narrative. He says, “You . . . are living like a Gentile,” when it would have been more precise to say, “Until now you were living like a Gentile, but now you have gone back to living like a Jew.” Paul also overstates the matter for effect. Cephas is not directly “compelling” Gentile Christians to become Jewish; rather, his conduct is exerting an unintended moral pressure on them.
Figure 11. St. Peter and St. Paul (oil painting by Jusepe de Ribera, 1612). [Public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
It is worth noting that Paul’s approach does not in any way call into question Peter’s doctrine or his customary conduct. It only concerns his recent behavior that was not consistent with his basic position. To stop Peter’s false actions that were causing public scandal, Paul reveals Peter’s inconsistency, thus putting an end to the false impression that Peter considered Gentile Christians unclean.
Paul does not report Peter’s reaction to this confrontation but instead moves on to explain the doctrine of justification that underlies his refusal to require that Gentiles practice circumcision and other Jewish customs. Some authors speculate that Peter rejected Paul’s correction, arguing that if Peter agreed with him, surely Paul would have reported it.4 But the nature of Paul’s correction was not an argument that left room for discussion, since it was a public disclosure of Peter’s inconsistent practice. Besides, if it were generally known that Peter rejected Paul’s correction, that fact would render this part of Paul’s argument unpersuasive, since the testimony and practice of Peter would contradict it.
It is important to remember that the only perspective Galatians gives us on the matter is Paul’s. To have a fuller picture of this event, we would need to hear from Peter. Since he did not leave a record, the best we can do is to imagine his position. According to the agreement in Jerusalem, Peter was to take concern for proclaiming the †gospel to Jews (Gal 2:9), and the normal position of Jewish Christians was to remain faithful to Jewish observances (Acts 21:20). They had strong reasons to remain faithful to their heritage: respect for the †law that God gave to his people, the duty to preserve solidarity with their countrymen, and a concern to proclaim the †Messiah to them. They did not see any reason to abandon their traditional way of life. No doubt it was difficult for some to accept that the law of Moses and Jewish traditions were not required of Gentile Christians who had recently come to share in the †inheritance of Israel through the Messiah. Peter did not wish to upset them.
LIVING TRADITION
Paul’s Confrontation with Peter in the History of Interpretation
Paul’s account of his confrontation with Peter at Antioch has long made readers uneasy because of Christian veneration of Peter as the rock on whom Christ has built his Church (Matt 16:18). A variety of paths for avoiding this difficulty have been tried over the course of history.
St. Jerome, following the interpretation of Origen and St. John Chrysostom, said that the confrontation between the two apostles was staged, that the attitude of Peter was a necessary fiction for the good of the Jewish Christians, and that the reaction of Paul was another fiction, necessary for the good of the †Gentile Christians. According to them, the goal that justified this simulated dispute between the two apostles was maintaining the peace of the Church.a
This interpretation did not satisfy St. Augustine, who wrote to St. Jerome to explain the reasons for his disagreement. He did not accept that Sacred Scripture should be full of fictions not presented as such, and he maintained that a pretend controversy would be unworthy of the two apostles. The argument on this point in the correspondence between Augustine and Jerome was long (AD 395–405) and intense. In the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas summarized it in his exegesis of Gal 2:11–14 and sided with St. Augustine: Peter truly was in the wrong, failing to foresee the negative consequences of his actions.b
In the time of the Reformation, Luther referred to this incident repeatedly, interpreting his own situation in its light, placing himself on the side of Paul and the pope on the side of Peter. But this was a polemical misuse of the text, seeking to justify his rejection of papal authority. We have seen that in his questioning of Peter, Paul neither denies Peter’s role of leadership nor accuses him of teaching false doctrine, but rather he accuses Peter of adopting a mode of conduct that was hypocritical and inconsistent.
a. See John Chrysostom, Homily on Galatians 2:11–12, in ACCS VIII:26, 28–29; Jerome, Epistle to the Galatians 1.2.11.
b. See Augustine, Epistle to the Galatians 15 (1B.2, 11–16); excerpts in ACCS VIII:27–29. See Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, trans. F. R. Larcher, OP (Albany, NY: Magi, 1966), chap. 2, lecture 3, http://dhspriory.org/thomas/SSGalatians.htm#23.
In this context, Peter’s conduct is at least understandable. Nevertheless, Galatians is not simply a historical document but is also a part of inspired Scripture. Consequently, it is important to recognize that Scripture has not privileged Peter’s point of view, whatever that might have been, but that of Paul. That does not place everything about Paul’s way of handling the situation or his perspective beyond question. Nevertheless, the doctrine of inspiration does guarantee the judgment on the issue firmly expressed by Paul in the text and explained more clearly in the verses that follow. Christians are not called to accept circumcision or other “works of the law” to be justified. Rather, they are free of impurity and full members of God’s †covenant people on the basis of the only valid foundation for relationship with God—namely, †faith in Christ, “who gave himself for our sins . . . in accord with the will of our God and Father” (Gal 1:4).
We may also conclude that Paul’s example should be followed in refusing to compromise the truth of the gospel. The Apostle Paul often exhorts his readers to follow his example (see 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Phil 3:17; etc.), and this is conveyed to all subsequent generations as inspired teaching.
Reflection and Application (2:11–14)
A characteristic of Catholic †faith is love and respect for Peter’s successor, the bishop of Rome. As the vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the pope enjoys a special assistance of the Holy Spirit when he teaches about faith and morals in the course of his ordinary ministry (Catechism 882, 892). Furthermore, the Church holds that when the pope “proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals,” the Holy Spirit preserves his teaching from error, so that the Church may never be deprived of the †gospel (Catechism 891, quoting Lumen Gentium 25).
However, the Church has defined papal infallibility in a very limited way, because as this text shows, Peter himself was capable of making mistakes in the way he fulfilled his ministry. Moreover, it is a fact of history that some popes, especially during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, were very worldly men who scandalized many and greatly harmed the Church through their evil conduct. Thanks be to God that in the last couple of centuries the Church has been blessed with a series of holy popes more like Peter than like his unworthy successors. Nevertheless, divine assistance does not guarantee that the words and actions of even holy po
pes will always be good or wise, as this passage from Galatians illustrates. This is all the more reason why we Catholics should pray that the Lord guide the pope and the bishops and that they may be docile to his Holy Spirit.
1. The NABRE begins the sentence with “and”; Paul, however, has switched to a Greek word that often indicates a contrast. As to “when,” Paul’s wording is not completely clear about whether the incident in Antioch took place before or after the meeting in Jerusalem. Some biblical scholars believe it was prior to the resolution in Jerusalem, which might provide a more logical sequence of events.
2. Jubilees 22:16 (trans. O. S. Wintermute), in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 2:98. Some scholars say that the underlying issue was whether Jewish Christians could eat nonkosher food at the homes of Gentile Christians. But Gal 2:12 makes no mention of dietary regulations, while Acts 10:28–29 explicitly focuses on the Jewish belief that Gentiles were unclean. Peter changes his view on this matter as a result of the visions he receives, the angelic summons to the house of Cornelius, and the fact that the Holy Spirit descends on the Gentiles, proving that God had cleansed their hearts by faith (Acts 10:1–11:18; 15:8–9).
3. Acts 21:20–24, although describing a situation some years later, attests to the presence of thousands of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who were “all zealous observers of the law,” some of whom may still have held that Gentile Christians should be circumcised.
4. Some scholars have read this text as marking a division between Pauline and Petrine Christianity. However, evidence of such a division is lacking in the New Testament or in the earliest Christian writings, and later Christian tradition witnesses to the unity of Peter and Paul, liturgically commemorating them together (see also 1 Cor 3:22; 15:5; and 2 Pet 3:15).