Welcome back to my study/review of The Epistle to the Galatians. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Galatians 2:11-14
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
These verses are a really big part of the mostly modern scholarship narrative that Paul and Peter were at odds with each other, or worse that Paul preached a fundamentally different Christianity than the one of the Apostles who actually knew Jesus before the crucifixion. But before we really dig into it, I want to point out a couple of things.
Paul seems to treat Peter (Cephas) as the leader of the early Church. This treatment is not limited to these verses, either. Throughout his letters, he seems to list Peter as the leader.
Disagreement or rebuke is not proof of schism. Here it’s the opposite. Paul is relaying a story that has him disagreeing with the leader of the early Church – and then persuading him. They remained in unity.
Paul appeals to their unity, because he relays Peter’s changed mind, and agreement, as evidence of his own authority in this letter (it is likely Paul’s opponents were appealing to Peter as an opponent of Paul..)
As was mentioned in a previous post, Peter refers to Paul as a beloved brother *after* this incident. [2 Peter 3:15]
When Peter . . — The true reading here is undoubtedly Cephas. The visit alluded to probably took place soon after the return of Paul and Barnabas, in the interval described in Acts 15:35, shortly before the separation of these two Apostles and the departure of St. Paul on his second missionary journey.
Because he was to be blamed — The Greek here is simply, because he was condemned. The act carried with it its own condemnation.
The blame thus imputed to St. Peter was a subject of much controversy in antiquity. It was made a ground of accusation against both Apostles. The Ebionites—as represented in the well known heretical work, the Clementine Homilies—charged St. Paul with hostility to the faith, asserting that by calling Peter “condemned” he was really accusing “God who revealed Christ in him.” On the other hand, Marcion, the Gnostic, saw in the incident a proof of the antagonism between Judaism and Christianity (as he understood it), represented by their several champions. The heathen critic Porphyry attacked both Apostles alike, the one for error, the other for forwardness in rebuking that error, and points to the whole scene as one of ecclesiastical wrangling.
The unfortunate result of these criticisms was that they led to attempts, on the part of the orthodox writers, to explain away the simple meaning of the narrative. Clement of Alexandria maintained that the Cephas here mentioned was not the Apostle St. Peter, but an inferior person, one of the seventy disciples. A more popular theory was that which was started by Origen, elaborated by Chrysostom, and defended with great vehemence by Jerome in a controversy with Augustine. This theory was that the two Apostles had arranged the scene beforehand between themselves, and acted it out for the edification of the Judaisers. St. Paul was to represent the view sanctioned by the Church, and St. Peter was to give an eminent example of submission. This view, though it held its ground for two centuries, was finally put down by the straightforwardness and good sense of St. Augustine.
The true explanation of the incident is to be found in the character of St. Peter—at once generously impulsive and timidly sensitive to the opinion of others. An inconsistency very similar to this appears in his ardent confession, followed by the betrayal of his Master (Mark 14:29; Mark 14:66et seq.). It had been seen at an earlier date in his attempt to walk upon the water (Matthew 14:28-33); and is, indeed, one of the features in his character most conspicuous in the Gospels. A little more attention to this would have saved many doctrinaire objections to the narrative of the Acts, where the inconsistency, which is really one of character, is treated as if it stood in the way of the objective truth of the events.
The comment gives some historical interpretation of the incident. The consensus interpretation is the one offered by Augustine, which is simply that the text is straight-forward. The much earlier view was that the whole thing was arranged between the two men and was acted out as something like theater to illustrate the point. For our purposes, it doesn’t really matter except to the extent of the topic of Papal infallibility and the aforementioned belief that Paul and Peter were opposed to each other.
As the latter has already been addressed, it’s probably worth taking some time to addres the idea of papal infallibility. (via wiki)
Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the pope when he speaks ex cathedra is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine “initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition“. It does not mean that the pope cannot sin or otherwise err. This doctrine, defined dogmatically at the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870 in the document Pastor aeternus, is claimed to have existed in medieval theology and to have been the majority opinion at the time of the Counter-Reformation.
That brief explanation thus leads us to another question. What does it mean to speak ex cathedra? (via wiki)
Cathedra and sedes are Latin words for ‘chair’, a symbol of the teacher in the ancient world. Thus is the position of a university professor referred to as a chair, and the position of a bishop as a see (from sedes). Believed by Catholics to be the successor of Peter, the pope is said to occupy the “Chair of Saint Peter” and his jurisdiction as the bishop of Rome is often referred to as the “Holy See“. Because Catholics believe that their bishops are the successors of the apostles and that Peter had a special role among the apostles as the preserver of unity, the pope is considered the spokesman for the whole church.
The doctrine of papal infallibility, the Latin phrase ex cathedra (literally, ‘from the chair’), was proclaimed by Pius IX in 1870 as meaning “when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, [the Bishop of Rome] defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.”
The response demanded from believers has been characterized as ‘assent‘ in the case of ex cathedra declarations of the popes and ‘due respect‘ with regard to their other declarations.
For a more in-depth explanation, I highly recommend the video below:
Certain came from James — The expression used leaves it an open question whether the persons intended brought, or claimed to bring, any sort of official authorisation from St. James (comp. Acts 15:24), or whether they merely belonged to the Church of Jerusalem, in which, if St. James was not actually bishop, he at least exercised a sort of presidential jurisdiction.
He did eat with the Gentiles — By eating with Gentiles a Jew contracted Levitical defilement. St. Peter had been accused of this before, on account of his intercourse with Cornelius. (Comp. Acts 11:3.) He had not, however, stability and firmness enough to treat the question of principle as settled for him then once for all, and he yielded to a repetition of the old remonstrances. Our Lord Himself had braved Jewish opinion on this point. (Comp. Luke 15:2.)
When they were come — The reading of the oldest MSS. here is “when he came,” of which it seems impossible to make any satisfactory sense. It may have been a slip of the pen, either in the original or in some very early copy. Other instances of mistakes in the oldest MSS. would be—Mark 4:21, “under a candlestick,” instead of “on a candlestick;” John 1:15, “he who said,” for “he of whom I said;” and a Greek form in Philippians 2:1.
Withdrew and separated himself — The Greek expression brings out the timid and gradual withdrawal, ending in complete separation.
Them which were of the circumcision — This appears to mean, not merely “those who advocated circumcision,” but “those who were made converts from a state of circumcision”—i.e., from Judaism.
This lays out the scene – whether done as a theater by Peter and Paul – or exactly as it is described in the text. Peter’s actions did not seem to be matching up with existing revelation and doctrinal understanding. Paul pointed this out, Peter agreed, and the matter became settled. The broader point addressed in the story – and in Paul’s letter – is that gentile converts did not need to become Jewish and that Jewish believers did not need to exclude gentile converts.
The other Jews . . — i.e. converts from Judaism, as distinct from Gentile converts, in the Church at Antioch.
Dissembled — The “dissimulation,” or “hypocrisy” (the literal sense of the Greek word), consisted in suppressing their real convictions, and acting as if from a set of convictions different from their real ones.
Barnabas also — Rather, even Barnabas, my own familiar friend, and so recently my ally in pleading the cause of the Gentiles. The beginning of the breach which soon afterwards led to the definite separation of the two Apostles would seem to be traceable here.
Walked not uprightly — This is a single word in the Greek, and found here alone in the New Testament. It means, literally, “to walk on straight feet”—i.e., erect and straightforwardly, as opposed to “shuffling.”
UntoPeter before them all — The true reading is again Cephas. The Apostle lays stress upon the publicity of his remonstrance, as showing that in his controversy with the Apostles of the circumcision he did something more than hold his own.
Being a Jew — “Being” is here emphatic, and means, “with all the antecedents of a Jew.” It is implied that a different rule must be applied to the Gentiles, with totally different antecedents.
Livest after the manner of Gentiles — i.e., in the matter of eating promiscuously with those whom the Law (or rather, the Pharisaic tradition) forbids you to eat with.
Why — The great preponderance of MSS. is here in favour of the reading how—i.e., how does it come about that?
Compellest — Do what you can to compel.
The note points out that Paul calls out Barnabas in these verses as well. The division between Paul and Barnabas is also sometimes overstated by scholars. Little is known of the subsequent career of Barnabas. He was still living and laboring as an Apostle in 56 or 57 AD, when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (1 Corinthians 9:5–6), in which it is stated that he, too, like Paul, earned his own living. The reference indicates also that the friendship between the two was unimpaired after the dispute recounted in Acts and here in Galations. A few years later, when Paul was a prisoner in Rome (61–63 AD), John Mark was attached to him as a disciple, which is regarded as an indication that Barnabas was no longer living (Colossians 4:10).
Paul’s question to Peter at the end of verse 14 is followed by additional exposition in the rest of the chapter. By all accounts – everyone in a position of Church authority agreed with Paul’s argument. That of course does not mean it was easy to accept the argument.
As I said in the previous post, you can understand the perspective of the 1st century Jewish Believers. For them, Christianity was an outgrowth of, or a fulfillment of, Judaism. The difficulty is deciding what it looks like to graft gentile branches onto a tree wherein Abraham is its roots. To some extent, we see some modern parallels to this tension with the modern doctrine of Christian Zionism. Then and now there are questions to be asked about where to draw boundaries and how to apply expectations to Christian believers. I’m sure we’ll get more into that later in the Epistle.
We’ll finish Chapter 2in the next section of verses.
