Commentary on Galatians 2:11-14

Text in red are my additions.

AT ANTIOCH ST. PAUL DEFENDS THE INTEGRITY OF THE GOSPEL AND INSISTS UPON THE UNIFORMITY AGREED UPON AT THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM

Summary of Galatians 2:11-14. The incident at Antioch is a striking illustration of St. Paul’s insistence on the true character of the Gospel, which was one for all men, Jews and Gentiles. At first when Peter came there he ate with the Gentiles, but later, upon the arrival of some Jews sent by James, he withdrew from the Gentiles. His example was followed by the rest of the Jewish Christians at Antioch, and finally even by Barnabas. Seeing this weakness and inconsistency on the part of Peter and the harm that was resulting, St. Paul, in the presence of all, rebuked Peter, accusing him of morally forcing the Gentile Christians to conform to Jewish practices.

Gal 2:11. But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

When Cephas was come, etc. When this visit took place and why it was made, we cannot determine exactly. But since Paul and Barnabas were most probably never together after the time mentioned in Acts 15:35-40, which was soon after the Council of Jerusalem, it seems next to certain that St. Peter came to Antioch at that time to visit the Church there, of which, according to tradition (Euseb., Chron.), he had been the founder.

Some commentators find it very difficult to explain how Peter and Barnabas, so soon after the Council of Jerusalem, could have exhibited such extraordinary weakness and disregarded the decisions so generously and unanimously arrived at during the Council. One reply is that the Council had decided, as a matter of doctrine, that the Gentile converts were not obliged to be circumcised, but that in practice the Jewish Christians could abstain from eating with their Gentile brethren (Steinmann). But the toleration of a practice contrary to doctrine solemnly agreed upon is hardly admissible. Again, it has been said that St. Peter, by his action, surrendered no principle, but was guided by prudence and opportunism; he thought it was too soon to disregard the sensibilities of the Jewish converts, and that to do so would only antagonize and bitterly offend them without sufficient reason (Hort). This solution leaves out of account the serious effect which such reasoning and such a mode of acting would have had on the many Gentile Christians of Antioch who, till then, had been treated on terms of perfect equality with Jewish converts; and such action would, moreover, have sanctioned the existence of two groups, socially unequal, in the Church. A third explanation would place this whole incident before the Council of Jerusalem (Williams). This, we are told, (a) agrees with St. Paul’s reference to Peter’s previous life (verse 14); (b) it explains the similarity between those who came from James (verse 12) and those who “came down from Judea” (Acts 15:1); (c) it helps us to understand the controversy described in Acts 15:1, 2; (d) it makes easier the explanation of the readiness with which Peter and Barnabas withdrew from the Gentiles upon the appearance of the Jews. A fourth opinion says that the Cephas of this incident was not St. Peter, but one of the seventy-two disciples of our Lord (Clement of Alex.). Finally, some of the Fathers have inclined to the view that the whole affair had been previously agreed upon between St. Peter and St. Paul as a means of impressing on the Jewish Christians the necessity of treating their Gentile brethren on terms of equality (Origen, St. Chrys., Theodoret). However well these last three opinions would explain certain difficulties, they must be rejected as out of harmony with the uniform tradition of the Church and with the context.

To the face, i.e., openly and publicly (verse 14).

To be blamed, i.e., was culpable. The words and action of St, Paul show that he regarded St. Peter as his superior; so secure is he in the approval of his Gospel that he does not hesitate to reprove the head of the Church, when there is question of deviating from the recognized and authorized teaching. St. Paul’s part in resisting the head of the Church for his unbecoming conduct was no more out of place than was the part taken by St. Catherine of Siena against Pope Gregory for living in Avignon (Rickaby).

Gal 2:12. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.

Why James sent these messengers to Antioch we do not know. Perhaps it was to collect alms for the poor at home. In Jerusalem these emissaries had been accustomed to practice the Mosaic observances, which, for Jews, had not been prohibited by the Council. Moreover, they knew that St. Peter, whom they regarded as their leader, had never failed to observe the Law when with them in the Holy City.

He did eat, i.e., he was accustomed to eat. The use of the imperfect, (συνεσθίω = sunesthiō) shows that Peter’s practice of eating with the Gentiles had continued for some time. He had opened the Church to the Gentiles, had clearly understood that there was to be no distinction between Jewish and Gentile converts (Acts 10:1 ff.; 11:1 ff.; etc.), and as before at Caesarea, so now at Antioch he ate with the Gentiles all kinds of food. The only trouble was that when at Jerusalem he seems to have accommodated himself to Jewish practices out of sympathy for his fellow-countrymen.

He withdrew. The verb here is also in the imperfect, and thus signifies that his changed attitude had continued for a considerable time.

Fearing them, i.e., fearing to scandalize his fellow-Jews from Jerusalem who had been used to his observing the Law like themselves, and who, if he continued to eat with the Gentiles in their presence and under their observation, might lose the faith altogether (St. Chrys.).

Gal 2:13. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.

So great was the authority and influence of St. Peter that his conduct, in separating himself from the Gentile Christians, was soon followed by the Jewish converts of Antioch, who had long before given up the Mosaic observances. Even Barnabas, who had been St. Paul’s companion in converting the Gentiles, and who at the Council of Jerusalem had so fully accepted the decisions there given, was also finally led by the example of St. Peter and the Jewish converts to separate himself from the Gentiles. St. Paul stood alone. Rightly incensed at the weakness of St. Peter in particular he made up his mind energetically to interfere.

Although St. Peter’s conduct, as well as that of those who imitated his action, was contrary to inner convictions, the expression τη ὑπόκρισις (= hay hupokrisis) must not be understood in the evil sense of hypocrisy. Peter’s weakness led him and the others into dissimulation and pretense.

Gal 2:14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Walked not uprightly. The literal meaning is that they did not walk straightly (ὀρθοποδέω = orthopodeo, ̄ from ὀρθός = orthos, straight, and πούς = pous, foot), but deviated from the right path of the Gospel teaching.

The truth of the gospel was the rule according to which they were supposed to act, and that truth proclaimed freedom from the Mosaic observances. St. Paul rebuked Peter, not for error in doctrine, but for the weak inconsistency of acting contrary to admitted principle. Conversationis fuit vitium, non praedicationis (Tertull.)-

Before them all, i.e., probably when both the Gentile and Jewish Christians were having a reunion, which would show that they had not ceased entirely to come together at certain intervals, perhaps for the Agape or love-feast (1 Cor 11:20 ff.). “All,” however, may refer to St. Peter, Barnabas and the other Jews who, by Peter’s conduct, had been led into dissimulation.

If thou, being a Jew, etc., i.e., Peter, who was a Jew by birth and training, freely consented and ate with the Gentile Christians at Antioch until after the arrival of those messengers from James. Then, for fear of offending his fellow-countrymen, he changed and conformed to Jewish observances, thereby morally compelling the Gentile converts to do likewise. The word compel (ἀναγκάζω = anagkazō) means nothing more than moral constraint, but it serves to show how powerful was the example and authority of St. Peter in the early Church. Although the faithful of Antioch had been instructed by St. Paul, they did not hesitate to follow St. Peter, whom they regarded as the head of the Church.

To live as do the Jews, i.e., to conform to the Mosaic observances. This shows that the Gentile converts at Antioch were exceedingly troubled. No one would have wondered to see the Christians from Jerusalem practicing Mosaic observances, for the Council had left them free in this matter; but to see the Jewish converts of Antioch going back to their old practices was nothing else than a disavowal of their conduct and an admission that the Law still obliged.

The assent given by St. Peter to St. Paul’s correction clearly proves that he thoroughly recognized the truth and correctness of the Apostle’s words.