Gal 2:11-14 | TNotes | STEP | Summary for Gal 2:11-21: 2:11-21 In Antioch, Peter and others compromised the Good News in contradiction of their own principles (this incident is not recorded in Acts). Paul’s rebuke of Peter showed that Paul’s apostleship was independent of Jerusalem and faithful to the Good News of Christ. 2:11 when Peter came to Antioch: This occasion, not recorded in Acts, probably occurred following the return of Paul and Barnabas from their first missionary journey (Acts 14:26-28 ). Paul probably wrote this letter soon afterward. • what he did was very wrong (or he stood condemned ): Peter’s actions were inconsistent with what he knew to be true—that God accepts Gentiles by faith, not by keeping the law (see Acts 10–11 ). • Paul had to oppose Peter to his face . Paul wanted to keep the Good News from being corrupted (Gal 2:21 ), which required showing publicly that Peter’s own public action was wrong (cp. 1 Tim 5:20 ).

Summary for Gal 2:11-21: 2:11-21 ^a In Antioch, Peter and others compromised the Good News in contradiction of their own principles (this incident is not recorded in Acts). Paul’s rebuke of Peter showed that Paul’s apostleship was independent of Jerusalem and faithful to the Good News of Christ. 2:11 ^b when Peter came to Antioch: This occasion, not recorded in Acts, probably occurred following the return of Paul and Barnabas from their first missionary journey (Acts 14:26-28 ^c). Paul probably wrote this letter soon afterward.

• what he did was very wrong (or he stood condemned): Peter’s actions were inconsistent with what he knew to be true—that God accepts Gentiles by faith, not by keeping the law (see Acts 10–11 ^d).

• Paul had to oppose Peter to his face. Paul wanted to keep the Good News from being corrupted (Gal 2:21 ^e), which required showing publicly that Peter’s own public action was wrong (cp. 1 Tim 5:20 ^f).
2:12 ^g That Peter ate with the Gentile believers was consistent with what God had shown him (Acts 10:9-16 ^h, 34-35 ⁱ).

• The friends of James wanted to reassert Jewish scruples and prevent the free communion between Gentiles and Jews from continuing.

• Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore: When Peter refused to share regular meals and the Lord’s Supper (cp. 1 Cor 11:20-22 ^j, 33-34 ^k) with fellow Christians, he divided the Jewish and Gentile Christians and implied that the Jews’ observances made them more acceptable to God. Peter’s example, if uncorrected, would have undermined the Good News of salvation by grace through faith.

• He was afraid: The friends of James intimidated Peter, who had previously withstood the same sort of criticism with power and eloquence (Acts 11:2-18 ^l). Peter might have been trying to avoid creating a barrier for the evangelism of Jews, or he might have been concerned for the safety and well-being of the Jewish Christians in Judea, who experienced persecution from non-Christian Jews (cp. 5:11 ^m; 6:12 ⁿ). In any case, his actions were inexcusable.
2:13 ^o Peter’s hypocrisy drew other Jewish believers into error regarding the Good News.
Summary for Gal 2:14-21: 2:14-21 ^p The actions of Peter and the others implied that faith in Christ was not enough. Paul eloquently argues against such a compromise of the truth of the gospel message, showing that the law plays no role in defining a Christian’s position before God, which is by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9 ^q).

• It is not clear where Paul’s public rebuke of Peter ends and his message to the Galatians resumes (see study note on Gal 2:16). While Paul was recounting his address to Peter, he was also speaking to the Galatians. His rebuke of Peter was also a rebuke of them (see 3:1 ^r). 2:14 ^s By living like a Gentile—eating with Gentiles and not observing Jewish food laws—Peter communicated God’s acceptance of Gentiles on equal terms with Jews, on the basis of faith in Christ (see Acts 10:34-43 ^t; 11:17-18 ^u).

• why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions? Both Jews and Gentiles would draw this conclusion from Peter’s actions.