Commentary on Galatians (25)
As for the significance of eating together, joining someone at the meal table is a sign of fellowship. To refuse meal fellowship then, of course, would signal some sort of distinction or even rejection. For example, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 5:11, "But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."
Elsewhere Peter was criticized by "the circumcised believers," who said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them" (Acts 11:3). On that occasion, Peter did not compromise the gospel but gave them an explanation on how it was revealed to him that God would save the Gentiles by the same gospel (v. 4-18). It is significant that Christ himself was attacked by the Pharisees for eating with tax collectors and other "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-11).
At Antioch, Peter ate with the Gentiles in the beginning. This was consistent with his profession of the gospel, that both Jews and Gentiles were accepted by God through Christ without the observance of Jewish laws and customs, including circumcision. But then "certain men from James" came, and Peter separated himself from the Gentiles "because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group."
We do not know the precise relation that these men had with James, or what they were there to accomplish, only that they disapproved of Peter's practice due to their rejection of the gospel. However, since James affirmed the true gospel (otherwise he would have been a reprobate and false apostle; Galatians 1:6-9), it is certain that whatever relation these men had with him, they did not represent his doctrinal views on the gospel, or how Jews and Gentiles are saved, and how they should conduct themselves as believers (Acts 15:24).
Moreover, we do not know why Peter was afraid of "the circumcision group." If what he felt was more than mere social pressure, then there could have been elements of religious politics behind the situation that we cannot discern from the text. There are theories suggesting that Peter's action resulted from his fear of becoming a stumbling-block to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, or that he even feared for their safety, as his behavior in Antioch (eating with the Gentiles) could have aggravated persecution against the Christians there.
However, even if there is any truth in them, all such speculations are irrelevant to an accurate understanding of Peter's motive. This is because, under divine inspiration, Paul declares that "he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group." There was no recognition of any noble reason or selfless concern. There was no excuse for Peter's hypocrisy – "he was clearly in the wrong." And to the extent that they attempt to beautify something that Scripture condemns, all these theories run counter to the truth and spirit of Paul's inspired letter.
Likewise, it is outright sinful for Cole to write, "To Barnabas, no doubt, this was simply a matter of love." "No doubt"? But there is nothing in the text to support this idea. Fear and hypocrisy are the only stated reasons. "A matter of love"? But this suggests a definition of love that is foreign to and subversive of Scripture. Does the Bible define love in a way that calls for disobedience against itself? Any idea of "love" that leads one to become an enemy of the gospel cannot be the kind of love that Scripture teaches. Cole's idea of love here is social and humanistic, and not derived from biblical precept. Besides, where is the love for the Gentile Christians? It seems that Barnabas and Cole have forgotten about them. Thus this is just another attempt to beautify what Scripture condemns as sin and hypocrisy.
Commentary on Galatians (24)
What is it then? Perhaps this incident is so appropriate as a launching point for the theological arguments in the rest of the letter that, even if there is such a transition in Paul's mind, one overlaps into the other so smoothly that it is not so obvious. And if it is because of this reason that the transition is not obvious, then neither is it important to discover the precise point where it takes place, that is, if there is such a point at all. Many commentators agree with this, even as they attempt to advance one view over the others.
We will divide our discussion of verses 11-21 into two sections – verses 11-14 and verses 15-21. Although the view that verse 15 marks a new section in which Paul turns from his confrontation at Antioch to directly address the Galatians can make good sense, our discussion is divided in this manner not because we insist on this view as true. Rather, the passage is divided this way here mainly because it contributes to convenience in exposition. Indeed, even if it does not mark a transition in whom Paul addresses, verse 15 marks a transition from a historical narration to a theological argument.
Although debate surrounds some of the details, Paul's account of what happened is straightforward, and the main points are unmistakable. When Peter was at Antioch, at first he joined the Gentile Christians in their meals. But when certain Jews arrived there as well, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles, and other Jews followed, including Barnabas. Paul publicly confronted Peter and charged him with hypocrisy.
It is impossible to know why Peter was at Antioch, or when this incident occurred relative to the other events recorded in Scripture. It is perhaps natural to assume that the events in 1:11-2:14 are recounted in their chronological order. But even if this assumption is correct, it offers limited assistance in dating the event in this passage.
For example, some have concluded that if 1:11-2:14 follows a chronological order, then the visit to Jerusalem in 2:1-10 must refer to one that occurred before the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. This is because Peter openly defended Paul's understanding of the gospel – that is, the gospel itself – in Acts 15:7-11. Some interpreters find it difficult to accept that Peter could behave as he did in Galatians 2:11-14 after making his speech in Acts 15.
However, the reasoning is fallacious, and rests on an assumption about human nature that amounts to a rejection of the biblical doctrine of sin. Hypocrisy was the charge that Paul leveled against Peter, precisely because the latter's behavior contradicted his own profession. So to say that Peter could not have behaved in this manner after he had made such a bold profession of the gospel is worse than to beg the question, but it is an outright rejection of what Paul states in our passage.
Moreover, if it seems that Acts 15 makes any such subsequent compromise of the gospel unthinkable, then what about Acts 9? There God told Peter in a vision, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean" (v. 15). And when Peter visited Cornelius and became his guest, he explicitly acknowledged that he was acting against Jewish customs, but that he was acting according to God's command (v. 28). What Peter did at Antioch contradicted both his profession and behavior in Acts 9.
Besides, there is no need to look at Acts 9 or 15 for the charge of hypocrisy to apply, since our passage mentions that Peter was eating with the Gentiles before the Jews came. Thus his behavior was hypocritical not only relative to some bold profession that he made long before the incident, but even relative to something that he had been saying and doing at Antioch itself.
Thus we cannot date the events in Galatians 2 by the assumption that Peter could not have been as hypocritical as he appears in verses 11-14. The result is that assuming a chronological order for the events in 1:11-2:14 still does not help us ascertain their dates with precision.