Our class discussion this week led us to the incident at Antioch as Paul describes in Galatians 2:11-14:
“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy. 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?’”[1]
Our ultimate goal was to figure out what happened at Antioch, why Paul was so upset, and also figure out what Peter’s perspective might have been. Essentially, I said both Peter and Paul were quickly realizing they didn’t have a unified definition of what a Jesus follower looked like – whether they continue practicing the law and retain their Jewish identity or surrender it all (or certain elements) to intermingle with the Gentile Christians. For as Dunn highlights, “The point is that earliest Christianity was not yet seen as something separate and distinct from Judaism. It was a sect, like other sects within first-century Judaism. The first Christians had some distinct and peculiar beliefs about Jesus; but their religion was the religion of the Jews.”[2]
Dunn’s point is something I grew up not even knowing about. Instead, I was oftentimes confused as to why Peter would return to Jewish customs after experiencing life with the risen Jesus. I had assumed he became “Christian” right at the beginning of Acts. Of course, given Peter’s track record in the Gospels (e.g. rebuked by Jesus, failure to stay awake with Jesus, denied knowing Jesus, etc.), I simply understood the Antioch incident as another one of Peter’s blunders. Yet if we understand that there wasn’t much distinction between Christianity and Judaism in his time, then it actually seems quite understandable that he would return to Jewish customs.
And this leads us to the next point in thought: What were those customs? Was it circumcision? Or was it food laws that divided Peter from the Gentiles? If Acts 10:14 can be of any use here, it suggests Peter was still struggling in surrendering Jewish ways, but particularly regarding food; “But Peter said, ‘By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.’”
A scholar named Mark Nanos argues that “[a] change of diet certainly would be a less threatening option, and one that non-Jewish men should be expected to accommodate more gladly than the alternative of circumcision – but that is not what Paul states to be at issue.”[3] As Nanos states earlier in his article, he’s in direct disagreement with Dunn, who argued that it was dietary laws (as well as circumcision) that retained their Jewish identity – particularly in response to anti-Jewish riots and turmoil stirring in other parts of the Roman Empire.[4] It means those “certain people from James,” as Dunn argues, were on a mission in reaction to that rising anti-Jewish threat.[5]
Thielman says if Paul had withdrawn from the Gentiles (as Peter had done), he would have violated “the ‘law of Christ’ of [Gal.] 6:2, a law that incorporates the Mosaic injunction to love one’s neighbor.”[6] Given Paul’s strong focus on Christ, I find this stance most convincing – that whether it was dietary laws or circumcision didn’t matter. What mattered was fellowship through faith in Christ. Yet both Peter and Paul began to recognize consequences of such a new identity. However, Peter seemed to have erred on the side of what was comfortable to him (continuing on as a Jew) whereas Paul erred on the side of what he believed the gospel meant (unity in Christ).
What do you think the issue at Antioch was about? Do you think Peter was in the wrong as Paul suggests or do you sympathize with Peter considering his Jewish identity? What other elements do you think belong in the conversation?
[1] All Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version
[2] James D.G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law (Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990), 131, emphasis his.
[3] Mark D. Nanos, “The Myth of the ‘Law-Free’ Paul Standing Between Christians and Jews,” Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations v. IV, Issue #1 (Center for Christian-Jewish Learning, 2009), 11-12.
[4] Dunn, J.P.L, 135
[5] Dunn, J.P.L, 136
[6] Frank Thielman, Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach (InterVarsity Press, 1994), 142
the archives near Emmaus 
I have two ideas to add. First, maybe the behaviour of Peter and of other Jews was an attempt to keep the ‘insider’ circle in the Church, the Jewish insider circle. It is possible for me that — taking into account all prophecies about the end of times and the conversion of heathen peoples to God of Israel which showed rather Gentiles gathered around the Jewish people rather than a unified one People of God — Jewish followers of Christ wanted to retain some special role and thought it will be good idea to manifest it by separate meals. ‘After all we are Jews and they are Gentiles, we all are not exactly the same’ they might have thought.
Second, I don’t think that having meal with the Gentiles had here something to do strictly with food laws. There is no suggestion in the text that the issue was any uncleanness of food. Rather I think that it was more connected with the idea of sacred, cultic feasting, the issue was the state of the participants of the meal, not food. It’s possible that Jews approached the believing Gentiles as Christian God-fearers, attending the gatherings (synagogai) but not really part of the cultic community. And attending almost every sacred meal in antiquity required some kind of preparation, some kind of being made fit, in distinction to others. St. Paul saw that for his brothers according to flesh, the Gentiles weren’t still fit enough to eat together in the cultic context (which for Jews included really all eating). Paul didn’t see the Church as a extended and more welcoming to others synagogue with a branch for Gentiles. This was for him as scandalous as his teaching was for the other.
This was all taking place in an era when the accepted status quo was that as close to Judaism Gentiles could get was as “God-feathers”. I always go back to Leander Keck’s idea that Paul believed in an imminent second coming of Christ and, in the spirit of loving one’s neighbors as oneself (and the Jewish proposition that they would lead the nation’s to the worship of the One True God), that he could tolerate shortcuts getting Gentiles INTO basic table-fellowship with Jews as soon as possible. “Table-fellowship” only physically manifested itself with diets and eating together, in reality it was letting Gentiles IN to the faith. It seems to me that this was the conclusion of the Jerusalem Assembly when they concurred with Paul in the basics of table-fellowship with Gentiles (I think they were only concerned with reports that Paul was circumventing Moses… and the ‘conflict’ we want to see was only them fleshing out the official press release) and that the rest of the faith practices as they practiced them would come to Gentiles as time/circumstances permitted “for Moses is taught in all the synagogues”. This radical new (old!) idea was bewildering as escaping the ‘Jewish vs Gentile’ paradigm was not easily done and when done was individually assessed, and some such as Paul were perhaps too easily seen as too accommodating by others more conservative.
I think @Kamil may be on to something when he suggest the problem arose less from purity laws regarding diet and more from the ideologies and religious practices associated with the meals. Paul does spend quite a lot of time discussing eating food offered to idols in his epistles and when the Jerusalem Council reaches their compromise in Acts 15 the depiction is one of avoiding things associated with idolatry.
Martin Hengel and Maria Schwemer explore this incident and it’s context and consequences better than anyone. See their Paul: Between Damascus and Antioch.
Isn’t the problem as simple as — Peter’s inconsistency — that amounted to practical hypocrisy?