The Incident at Antioch

• We first see what Paul as a participant in the event has to say about the incident at Antioch.

• Given what we know about them, James and Peter would have interpreted the events differently.

• We can see that the event had severe consequences for the relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem church and to the future of Christianity both in its Jewish-Christian [b] form and its "law-free" Gentile version.

• As an excursus, we note that Acts too contain an account of the same incident but that account had been "doctored" to water down the seriousness of the break.

Paul's Account of the Incident

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 ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently 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 compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Read in a straightforward prima facie manner, it is quite easy to take Paul's side. After all it was Peter who broke the accord forged in Jerusalem. And Paul comes out looking like the righteous apostle that he claims to be, accusing Peter of hypocrisy regardless of the latter's status. However a closer inspection of his account of this incident reveals many things which perhaps Paul was trying a little too hard to conceal.

We have to remember, of course, that although Paul was an eye-witness, the context of the letter of Galatians was one in which his law-free mission to the Gentile was being threatened in Galatia and his recalling this incident was part of an apologetic defense of his work. As we will see elsewhere, there is every reason to believe that Paul's opponents in Galatia would be in a position to expose his account if he had simply fabricated the story. Thus while we would expect Paul would try to present his side in as favorable as possible, we would not expect outright fabrication in this account. In other words, we can assume that Paul's account is basically historical.

Our task now is to discover not only what Paul wants us to know, but what he tries not to reveal but comes out anyway in the retelling of the incident.

Back to the top

The Probable Position of James and Peter on the Incident

It is important to note that Paul's accusation of Peter, that he "lived liked a Gentile", could not be taken to mean that Peter was consuming pork or that he was drinking wine offered to idols. Coming so soon after the Jerusalem council where Peter (together with James) had, perhaps reluctantly, just accepted uncircumcised Gentiles as converts; it is unlikely in the extreme that he would then swing to total disregard of the Mosaic laws. As some scholars had noted, the accusation was just the type a sectarian Jew might make of another who is seen as not adhering as strictly to the law as he should. Thus the incident that triggered it was Peter sharing a table during a meal with Gentiles. [4]

Paul called the action of Peter and the rest "hypocrisy", yet we can see that the action of James in calling for Peter's withdrawal was completely consistent with their interpretation of the accord that was reached in the Jerusalem council. Indeed the fact that separate missions , however "separate" may be interpreted, was called for in the accord implies that, at least in the views of the Jerusalem Church, the division between Gentiles and Jews are still valid and the dietary restrictions still holds! From their point of view it could easily be Paul that was inconsistent, since he had expected Jewish-Christian to relax their dietary restrictions in the association with Gentile-Christians. [5]

Furthermore we cannot rule out the fact that the "men from James" convinced Peter by theological arguments that removing himself from table fellowship with Gentiles was the right and proper thing to do. Indeed the fact that Barnabas [Paul's missionary companion!] and all the Jewish-Christians took Peter's side means that they felt some powerful principle was involved. This means that it is quite probable that Peter made a principled stance after being shown his mistake by James's emissaries. [6] [d]

It is likely that the incident involved more than just Peter withdrawing from table fellowship with Gentiles. For Paul accused Peter of compelling Gentiles to Judaize (i.e. "live like Jews")(Galatians 2:14). Whether this mean that he was demanding that Gentiles be circumcised or asking for some kind of minimal adherence to Mosaic Laws (such as the Noachide Commandments or the rules governing Gentiles in Leviticus 18-20) from them we cannot know for sure. However this does show that the group of James did not consider Gentiles "out of bounds" for their "gospel of the circumcision." [7]

Back to the top

The Consequences of the Incident

Read through Galatians 2:11-14 again. In 2:14 all that Paul claimed to have done was that he confronted Peter "before them all" and accused him of being a hypocrite. Paul did not say anywhere whether Peter accepted his reprimand and admitted his error. We can be certain Peter did not. It is important to note that the epistle to the Galatians was written to defend Paul's "law free" gospel to the Gentiles. And here, as Ernst Haenchen wrote:

And how triumphantly Paul would have shown the power of his gospel, had he been able to write: "Peter, Barnabas and the other Jewish Christians confessed that I was right, and ate once again with the Gentile brethren"! Here the argumentum e silentio is justified for once, as everything urged Paul to speak if he could. And his silence shows success was denied him. [9]

The argument is compelling, had Paul prevailed he would not have failed to mention it. It was Peter who had the last word at Antioch. [10] And as Bruce Chilton noted it was Paul, not the Jewish Christians, who had to leave Antioch (Acts 15:22-41). [11]

Not only did Paul lose the confrontation with Peter, the consequences for his mission was a lot more serious than he had intended to let on. We note that it was not only Peter who separated themselves from the Gentiles but also Barnabas and the rest of the Jews. {Note Galatians 2:13 "And the rest of the Jews joined him in this hypocrisy") In other words, the whole Jewish Christian community in Antioch deserted Paul and took Peter's side. Furthermore there is no hint of reconciliation between Paul and the Jewish Christians either in the rest of Galatians or in his later epistles. Thus we have every reason to believe that the conflict between Paul and the Jewish Christians headed by James was lasting. [12] [e]

The incident also shows us that whatever was agreed upon in Jerusalem, it was understood differently by both parties. Indeed as far as Peter, Barnabas and the rest of the Jewish Christians were concerned, the agreement was spelled out in terms stipulated by James and not Paul. [13] As S.G. F. Brandon pointed out, it was a major setback for Paul's mission:

[W]hatever degree of acceptance Paul may have thought he succeeded in gaining at Jerusalem was completely negatived by the subsequent events at Antioch, and that henceforth in fundamental policy and basic sympathy he stood professedly apart from James and Peter, and in the issue was even deserted by his erstwhile companion, Barnabas. [14]

This incident also allows us to get a glimpse of the theology of the Jewish-Christianity headed by James around 50 CE, as summarized by Bernheim in his book James, Brother of Jesus:

It is the incident at Antioch which reveals most clearly the differences between James, Peter, Barnabas and the great majority of Jewish Christians on the one hand and Paul on the other. For the former, the Christians, or, to use their terminology, the Nazarenes or those who follow the Way, were first and fore- most Jews who had acknowledged Jesus. They formed the true Israel, the eschatological assembly of Israel. We may doubt whether they described baptized pagans as Nazarenes. They were only the god fearers, who would be saved. They were not integrated into the true Israel, but only associated with it. By refusing to share a table with them, the Jewish Christians were showing that they did not think them complete Christians. If they wanted to be fully integrated into the community of the Nazarenes, they had to be circumcised and live according to the law of Moses. Doubtless that is what Paul was referring to when he was criticizing Peter for forcing the pagans to Judaize. [15]

Paul's isolation forced him to reinterpret his theology and how he viewed his own status as an apostle. Bruce Chilton puts it thus:

The radical quality of Paul's position needs to be appreciated. He was isolated from every other Christian Jew (by his own account in Gal. 2: 11-13 : James, Peter, Barnabas, and "the rest of the Jews"). His isolation required that he develop an alternative view of authority in order to justify his own practice. Within Galatians, Paul quickly articulates the distinctive approach to Scripture as authoritative which characterizes his writings as a whole. His invention of the dialectic between grace and law, between Israel as defined by faith and Israel after the flesh, became a founding principle in the intellectual evolution of Christianity in its formative period. [16]

With this as background information we will be able to understand better the opposition Paul faced in his mission to the Gentiles.

Back to the top

Excursus: More Lukan Spin doctoring

Acts 15:36-41 36 And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Come, let us return and visit the brethren in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are." 37 And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. 38 But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. 39 And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord. 41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

We can be reasonably certain that Luke is referring to the same incident because of the following similarities between the two accounts:

• Both accounts of incident happened immediately after the council of Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-10 & Galatians 2:11-14; Acts 15:1-29 & Acts 15:29-41).
• Both took place in Antioch (Galatians 2:11; Acts 15:30).
• Both involved a sharp dispute (Galatians 2:14; Acts 15:39).
• In both cases there was a fallout between Paul and Barnabas (Galatians 2:13; Acts 15:39).

Let us note how Luke had changed the account about the Incident at Antioch. First Luke again presented the major facts about the events. This would include Paul's fallout with Barnabas at Antioch. Luke probably could not have avoided mentioning this since in all probability the memory of this was still alive at Antioch when he wrote Acts. Second note again that Luke has "watered down" the dispute as best he can. Instead of a serious theological dispute, it became a personal dispute about John Mark.

Also note how the most serious issue at Antioch, the quarrel between Paul and Peter, was omitted by Luke. Indeed any reference to Peter was completely erased from Luke's account.

When we compare how Luke treated the Jerusalem Council account earlier, we find similar methods.

• In these two cases, Luke did not invent the story from whole cloth. He could not omit certain major facts that were probably well known to his audience. In the Jerusalem council it was the issue of circumcision. At Antioch it was an argument which led to the parting of ways between Paul and Barnabas.
• But he had a tendency to put a positive spin on events, or, at the very least, to make it look less bad than it actually was. This he did by either adding to or changing the details of the story. In the Jerusalem council it was the reconciliatory speeches of Peter and James. Here the argument became a personal one rather than a more serious theological one. This is also consistent with what we have found elsewhere, that Luke tried to present Paul's relationship with the Jerusalem apostles as one of collegiate unity-a clearly unhistorical portrayal.
• Thirdly he tended to consistently and completely omit contentious issues. In the Jerusalem council he omitted all references to Titus. Here, he omitted all references to Peter. There was no trace of Titus at Jerusalem and no trace of Peter at Antioch.

Back to the top

Notes

Back to the top

References

Back to the top