Was Peter Wrong in Galatians

[Neto]

Galatians 2:11 is where Paul refers to this incident.
....

....

Perhaps this group "sent from James" were the first to go sit separately - we do not have this information. Is there some certain reason why Paul specifies that they were "sent from James"? The general context is Paul telling the Galatian believers how he "got his own vision independent of the previously established leaders in the Jerusalem congregation". I think that may indicate that Paul himself felt that these "guys from Jerusalem" were going to spoil the close fellowship between Jews and non-Jews there in Antioch. I don't think there is any indication that he let it ride at all. I'm not suggesting that he should have let it go for a few days, during which time he could have talked with Peter privately. But I think he could have gone over to where Peter was, and speak to him in normal tones first.

I think this happens after the Jerusalem counsel, when the Apostles ruled on these questions. Here's what Paul says about this just BEFORE he gets to the confrontation with Peter:

7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

To me, it looks like the church in Jerusalem had already agreed on the Gospel and on how Gentiles were to be treated in Acts 15, and Peter initially acted accordingly. Later, Peter became afraid of the circumcision party, and drew back. And this was affecting the church in a very public way.

That would also mean that this is not the same time described in Acts 11:19-26, but another time in Antioch, after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

I only looked at one exegetical source before my earlier response, and it raised the question of whether Paul's presentation of the facts in Galatians 2 was intended to be chronological. I obviously do not know either, but they said that it probably was not. (In fact, I had thought that this episode was recorded by Luke in the book of The Acts, and I searched there first. That would have helped to clear up this question, because Luke is generally regarded as a "chronological scholar", that his objective to present an "orderly account" means that as much as possible, he wanted to put it in the order of the events. This may be somewhat less so for his 'Gospel", but the Acts is basically a historical account. The break with chronology is mainly in the way he used the death of Stephen as a reference point to which he returns on several occasions, again picking up the story of the spread of the Gospel in a different area or with different main participants.)

As to the grammatical structure in these verses, that type of run-on sentences and complex grammatical relationships between phrases are not used at all in Banawa (as is commonly the case for pre-literature languages). You can also not have any sentences that have some action going on where the Actor is ambiguous. (It doesn't have to be in every sentence, if it is clear from the context. Banawa maintains the topic as the subject of every sentence in a discourse, unless a given sentence does not involve the person who is the topic.) So I was forced to say who convicted Peter of his wrong. The text says that he was "condemned". The NIV skips around this by saying that "he was clearly in the wrong". I translated it in the sense that his own conscience told him that he was wrong. Yes, that is "adding to the Scripture" something that is not clear from the text. (The Banawa Passive is only used to maintain the topic person as the subject - the trickery that the English Passive involves is not allowed in Banawa. That is, to avoid disclosing who the actor is.) Anyway, this rendering was accepted by the rigorous consultant checks as practiced in WBT. I do not recall if I was questioned about this, or what all commentaries I used for this particular passage.

So as to the question posed by the topic title, it is evident that I answer in the affirmative - Yes, Peter was in the wrong. The only question I am raising is as to whether Paul was also wrong in the way he dealt with Peter's wrong behavior.

We previously discussed the "Jerusalem Council" conflict, and I recall having commented that unlike some of our Mennonite groups now, who might easily have separated from the main church to start a "The Way Circumcision Fellowship", the whole congregation accepted the decision that they had come to after extended discussion. There is no further evidence of division in the Jerusalem congregation. If there is, and I've missed it, I need to be corrected.

[Bootstrap]

I only looked at one exegetical source before my earlier response, and it raised the question of whether Paul's presentation of the facts in Galatians 2 was intended to be chronological. I obviously do not know either, but they said that it probably was not.

Interesting - on what basis did it say it was not?

What Paul writes from Galatians 1:11-2:14 is written as a chronological narrative. If this actually happened before the Council of Jerusalem, and not after the Council of Jerusalem, I would say Paul is being deceptive, changing the order of things in order to create a false impression.

I don't think Paul lies to us like that. But when Cephas came to Antioch (Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν) implies very strongly that this happens AFTER the thing that was just described before, the council at Jerusalem that is described in Acts 15.

[Bootstrap]

So as to the question posed by the topic title, it is evident that I answer in the affirmative - Yes, Peter was in the wrong. The only question I am raising is as to whether Paul was also wrong in the way he dealt with Peter's wrong behavior.

We previously discussed the "Jerusalem Council" conflict, and I recall having commented that unlike some of our Mennonite groups now, who might easily have separated from the main church to start a "The Way Circumcision Fellowship", the whole congregation accepted the decision that they had come to after extended discussion. There is no further evidence of division in the Jerusalem congregation. If there is, and I've missed it, I need to be corrected.

I don't know if Paul should have addressed this in a different way. But I see no place where Paul regrets what he did or where others complain of what he did. He seems to give a reason for confronting Peter to his face. So I am not inclined to judge his actions here.

I think Paul portrays this as something that happened after the Jerusalem Council. And as late as Romans, we still see controversy between Jews and Greeks in the early Church. I think culture runs very deep. It's really important to see our Christian unity beyond culture, but it's also very hard. We see that in the New Testament.

I don't remember any time after the Jerusalem Council that this conflict was within the church at Jerusalem. Of course, that church also had Gentiles, and there had been conflicts earlier, e.g. in Acts 6:

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.

[Neto]

So as to the question posed by the topic title, it is evident that I answer in the affirmative - Yes, Peter was in the wrong. The only question I am raising is as to whether Paul was also wrong in the way he dealt with Peter's wrong behavior.

We previously discussed the "Jerusalem Council" conflict, and I recall having commented that unlike some of our Mennonite groups now, who might easily have separated from the main church to start a "The Way Circumcision Fellowship", the whole congregation accepted the decision that they had come to after extended discussion. There is no further evidence of division in the Jerusalem congregation. If there is, and I've missed it, I need to be corrected.

I don't know if Paul should have addressed this in a different way. But I see no place where Paul regrets what he did or where others complain of what he did. He seems to give a reason for confronting Peter to his face. So I am not inclined to judge his actions here.

I think Paul portrays this as something that happened after the Jerusalem Council. And as late as Romans, we still see controversy between Jews and Greeks in the early Church. I think culture runs very deep. It's really important to see our Christian unity beyond culture, but it's also very hard. We see that in the New Testament.

I don't remember any time after the Jerusalem Council that this conflict was within the church at Jerusalem. Of course, that church also had Gentiles, and there had been conflicts earlier, e.g. in Acts 6:

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.

Look at the heated exchange Paul had with Barnabas about John Mark, also in Antioch. I have said here before that as a contra-example of how we should deal with conflict between leadership and in the church in general, that Paul knew Barnabas' giftings, that he was a man who in good faith came along side of others and helped them, basically as a mentor. He had done that for Saul himself, being the only one (besides the reluctant Ananias of Damascas) who believed that Saul's conversion could possibly be real. He risked his life in doing that. He should have seen from the start that even though he himself didn't think that Mark was ready to be a part of another evangelistic campaign, that suggesting that Barnabas do what he actually did was the right choice. There is nothing in Scripture saying that Paul ever apologized to Barnabas (or vice versa). There is nothing in Scripture that tells us that Paul ever expressed any appreciation directly to Mark, for how he later had become "very useful in his ministry". He expressed it to others. Can we safely assume that he also communicated this directly to Mark? I tend to assume that he did.

I am also not "judging Paul's actions". IF Paul was wrong in that case (i.e., with Peter), it is Jesus' own teachings, and Paul's reiterations of them; it is those things that "judge" his actions. But not everything that happened is recorded, so we simply do not know.

(I know what it feels like to be "put on a pedestal". We should not do that to anyone, not Paul, not Peter, no one but Jesus. He is the only perfect one.)

[Moses]

Moving this out of a politics thread because it involves the way we interpret Scripture.

I think that depends a lot on how the text judges these actions. We know that Peter was wrong to avoid eating with Gentiles in Galatia, for instance, and that Paul was right to confront him over this. If that were not true, the entire book of Galatians falls apart.

Whatever are you referring to?

Here's one of the passages I am thinking of, from Galatians 2. Here, Paul is telling what happened and linking it firmly to the themes he is teaching in the book of Galatians. There's no clean break between what happened and what Paul is teaching. This forms background for everything that follows.

Paul Opposes Peter

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 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. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 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?”

Justified by Faith

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Oh, that account. As far as I can tell that happened in Syria, not Galatia.

[Bootstrap]

Oh, that account. As far as I can tell that happened in Syria, not Galatia.

Yeah, my bad. Failing memory ...

[MattY]

Matt. 18:15 is about private sin between two believers, where one has sinned against the other. Peter's sin, and the sin of the others who followed his example, was not against Paul personally; it was public, against the gospel and against Gentile brethren, and as such, it needed to be rebuked publicly.

There's also no reason in Galatians to suppose that Paul jumped up and began yelling, or spoke loudly, or "flew off the handle" or anything of that nature. It also doesn't indicate whether Paul contemplated his response or noticed it more than once before taking action. It merely says that Paul said it to his face in front of everyone. If I were to imagine it, I would imagine him walking up to Peter and saying calmly, “Brother Cephas, If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews?”

[MattY]

I think Galatians was written soon after the first missionary journey, before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

Paul's visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 2 is the same as the famine relief visit in Acts 11. The visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1-2 was Paul's second visit to Jerusalem according to Galatians, while Acts 15 was his third visit according to Acts. Paul says clearly that he visited Jerusalem for the first time three years after his conversion, and then again after 14 years (again, probably after his conversion). If Paul had more contact with the Jerusalem church than he claimed, his opponents could accuse him of lying; he was being careful to avoid that - see Gal. 1:20.

In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas were sent publicly by the church in Antioch and presented their report publicly to the Jerusalem Council, while in Galatians 2, Paul went by revelation to present his gospel message for the Gentiles to the church leaders *in private*; these leaders recognized his calling and validated his gospel. In Acts, Paul's second visit to Jerusalem was the famine relief visit with Barnabas in Acts 11. Paul reports in Galatians that the leaders asked only that they remember the poor, which they were already making every effort to do (that goes along well with the purpose of the famine relief visit).

Paul makes no mention of the Council's decision in Galatians; if he would have written after it, surely he'd have mentioned their decision, since it would have bolstered his case.

If this is the case, then Peter's visit to Antioch happened after the famine relief visit but before the Jerusalem Council; it could have happened either before or after Paul's first missionary journey, but probably before. Peter, having already indicated his approval of Paul's ministry and the gospel he was preaching, became afraid of the circumcision party and stopped eating with the Gentiles, and Paul confronted him for his hypocrisy.

[Bootstrap]

I think Galatians was written soon after the first missionary journey, before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

Paul's visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 2 is the same as the famine relief visit in Acts 11. The visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1-2 was Paul's second visit to Jerusalem according to Galatians, while Acts 15 was his third visit according to Acts. Paul says clearly that he visited Jerusalem for the first time three years after his conversion, and then again after 14 years (again, probably after his conversion). If Paul had more contact with the Jerusalem church than he claimed, his opponents could accuse him of lying; he was being careful to avoid that - see Gal. 1:20.

In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas were sent publicly by the church in Antioch and presented their report publicly to the Jerusalem Council, while in Galatians 2, Paul went by revelation to present his gospel message for the Gentiles to the church leaders *in private*; these leaders recognized his calling and validated his gospel. In Acts, Paul's second visit to Jerusalem was the famine relief visit with Barnabas in Acts 11. Paul reports in Galatians that the leaders asked only that they remember the poor, which they were already making every effort to do (that goes along well with the purpose of the famine relief visit).

Paul makes no mention of the Council's decision in Galatians; if he would have written after it, surely he'd have mentioned their decision, since it would have bolstered his case.

If this is the case, then Peter's visit to Antioch happened after the famine relief visit but before the Jerusalem Council; it could have happened either before or after Paul's first missionary journey, but probably before. Peter, having already indicated his approval of Paul's ministry and the gospel he was preaching, became afraid of the circumcision party and stopped eating with the Gentiles, and Paul confronted him for his hypocrisy.

This is really well reasoned - thanks! I've now changed my mind a second time about the timeline here.

[Neto]

Matt. 18:15 is about private sin between two believers, where one has sinned against the other. Peter's sin, and the sin of the others who followed his example, was not against Paul personally; it was public, against the gospel and against Gentile brethren, and as such, it needed to be rebuked publicly.

There's also no reason in Galatians to suppose that Paul jumped up and began yelling, or spoke loudly, or "flew off the handle" or anything of that nature. It also doesn't indicate whether Paul contemplated his response or noticed it more than once before taking action. It merely says that Paul said it to his face in front of everyone. If I were to imagine it, I would imagine him walking up to Peter and saying calmly, “Brother Cephas, If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews?”

It is correct that the text in Matthew DOES refer to "sins against you personally". I'm not sure that this means that one should not follow the same procedure in other cases. In respect to what Paul himself said in other contexts, we do have his thoughts expressed to Timothy (I Timothy 5:1-19-20), where he says not to listen to accusations made against an elder unless there are at least 2 or 3 who saw the infraction occur. Then he states that "those [elders] who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others (again, elders) may take warning.

I think there are other texts that should be considered, but I will retract my comments about Paul's response to Peter's sin of "fear of man", at least for the time being, until I can more fully examine this whole question of how one ought to respond in such a case. Please recall that I didn't say that Paul was wrong to reprimand Peter - my comment only dealt with the manner in which it was done. The wording "to his face" may only indicate a calm, personal confrontation, as others have suggested. If so, in light of the way this phrase is generally used in English, I would suggest that it is not a good translation. However, if he acted with the same approach as he suggested to Timothy, then I do not think he meant a somewhat private talk with Peter, where it would not have been heard by everyone in the room. He would have had to "speak loudly" to accomplish this.