Some people think that Galatians 2 chronicles a schism between Peter & Paul that exceeded practice & indicated a doctrinal schism within the ranks of the Apostles early on. Let’s look at Galatians 2:11 - 14.
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 was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 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?” (Galatians 2:11–14, ESV)
Let’s break this down:
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 was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
The text tells us that some men arrived in Antioch who had been sent by James. They appear to be those of the circumcision party, the sect that was pushing the idea that Gentiles must adopt Jewish observances like their liturgical calendar & circumcision in order to be considered true believers (or believers but not first class believers). Cephas (not Peter)*withdraws from fellowship with the Gentile section of the Antiochene church.
*Notice that Paul draws a distinction between “Peter,” & “Cephas.” Most people read the text anachronistically, as if because John calls Simon “Cephas,” & “Cephas” in John is Peter, it therefore follows that the author of Galatians intended to identify Cephas (2:7) as Peter.
That interpretation of the text suffers from semantic anachronism as well as both semantic incest & semantic inflation. Those who read the text this way are mapping their theology of Peter/Peter’s identity back onto the text, defining Peter via the lens of John & Ecclesiastical Tradition, & then, while, using the text in a viciously circular manner (since Ecclesiastical Tradition does not supply the necessary & globally sufficient truth conditions to interpret reality correctly), conflating the mere occurrence of the word “Cephas” with an entire doctrine associated with the word in addition to mapping John’s usage of the term onto Galatians’ usage of the term.
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. (Galatians 2:7–9, ESV)
Notice that the author refers to Peter twice (once in vs. 7 & again in vs 8). If Cephas is Peter, then why does the author change his name to Cephas from 2:9 onward?
The author’s words draw a distinction between Peter & Cephas. Ergo, Peter & Cephas, in Galatians are two different people — which indicates “Cephas” is a group title rightly applied to more than one individual.
And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy
Barnabas deliberately separated from the Gentiles just like Peter, leading to Paul’s perception of Peter & Barnabas as hypocrites. He doesn’t consider the possibility that James sent the men to Antioch in order to trap them & provoke Paul’s response.
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?”
Notice how Paul accuses Cephas of hypocritical behavior but not incorrect doctrine: He reminds Cephas that he (Cephas) lives like a Gentile relative to his own faith & practice and contends with him about failing to present a united front with respect to his behavior in this particular instance ***but not anywhere else.***
In short, this conflict is about Cephas’ behavior in a specific time & place — not a doctrinal schism. Paul calls for a united front, & according to Acts 15, Cephas did not disagree that such a front was required.
Paul informs us in 2:9 that James, Cephas, & John had recognized Paul & given both him & Barnabas the right hand of fellowship & commissioned them to take the gospel to the Gentiles.
Galatians is dated to between 48 & 51 AD/CE before the Jerusalem Council & the incident in Galatians 2 therefore occurred very early on in Paul’s ministry. Paul isn’t as mature as he probably ought to be, & he doesn’t even consider the possibility that James was setting up this confrontation with Cephas.
Paul gives us his perspective on the matter, which indicates that he, at that time, was prone to anger & accusation. He thinks of Cephas as a hypocrite for living in liberty relative to his faith & practice elsewhere — but he doesn’t accuse Cephas of doctrinal error nor does he accuse Cephas of having been beguiled by these individuals. Rather, he perceives of Barnabas & Cephas as men who, like himself, understood & believed in justification by faith & who also believed that the Sabbath is made for (administration by) man not man for the Sabbath.
In other words, by the time this incident occurred, Paul knew Cephas or of Cephas well enough to know that Cephas was no Judaizer, that he believed the gospel was & is for the Gentiles as well as the Jews, & that he (Cephas) also believed that rote observance of Sabbath regulations, the Jewish liturgical calendar, & circumcision (as articulated by the Judaizer) conduced to a species of legalism, not liberty. The text chronicles a dispute over Cephas’ behavior (but not his doctrine) & gives us a look at Paul’s temper. Far from chronicling a doctrinal schism between Paul, Barnabas, James, & Cephas, Galatians testifies to their doctrinal agreement & Paul’s (correct) recognition that the persistent problem the Judaizers represented required a unified front.
In all likelihood what we have here is a clever trap set by James & his associates in Jerusalem. James sends these men to Antioch knowing Cephas was already there. Paul & Barnabas arrived not long thereafter. Peter visibly withdraws from fellowship with the Gentile section of the Galatian church. Then Barnabas does the same or appears to do the same. This, in turn, goads Paul, provoking an open confrontation, which, in turn, springs the trap & further provokes a much needed discussion among the Apostles that ultimately plays out in the Jerusalem Council itself.
Admiral Ackbar says, “It’s a trap!”
May God bless us all, each & every one and “Go & sin no more.”
