Comments on: Galatians 2:11-14-What is being contrasted?

By: Richard Fellows

Richard Fellows — Sun, 02 May 2010 21:53:00 +0000

Steve, thanks for sharing your insights on racial integration in Virginia. I think they could well be applicable here, and could explain why Peter supported the Jerusalem decree and affirmed Paul’s gospel (Gal 2:7-9), but later showed hypocrisy when the rubber hit the road.

But all this is actually rather consistent with my hypothesis. I require only that the Galatians believed that the Jerusalem church leaders supported Gentile liberty. The Galatians would think this if, for example, Acts is right about the letter that the Jerusalem church leaders wrote. In writing this letter, they would not have been taking huge personal risks.

So, I think your Virginia insights are helpful, but I think they actually support my hypothesis by showing that the letter of Acts 15 is historically plausible. Perhaps you have misunderstood my hypothesis?

I do not understand your point about the Acts 15 council and Peter’s vision.

By: Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Sun, 02 May 2010 16:47:30 +0000

To be Frank, Richard, after reading your posts and that of Carlson that you cite, it still remains far-fetched. The stumbling block is your assertion that “Both Paul and the Jerusalem church leaders believed that Gentiles should not be circumcised.” Based on the nature of the Acts 15 council and impact Peter’s vision appears to have had on his views, I cannot accept your proposal. At most there may have been mental assent, but when the rubber hit the road the Pillars show a propensity to revert to old ideas. Growing up in Virginia, it was one thing to verbally support racial integration, it was quite another to bring home a friend or move into a neighborhood that did not fit the accepted mold. Freedom and equality are much more costly in practice than in theory. Furthermore, it is one thing to have a private relationship with someone, and quite another to make it public among one’s peers. Regardless of who came when or the timing of the council relative to the Antioch incident, Peter seems to have played both sides and been called out for his hypocrisy.

I have heard it expressed as the difference between preferred beliefs and actual beliefs. The former are given lip-service, the latter are what we act upon. I see the pillars–at best–holding Gentile freedom as a preferred belief, ostensibly allowing Paul to go and do his own thing as long as it did not upset their status quo.

By: Richard Fellows

Richard Fellows — Sat, 01 May 2010 15:43:39 +0000

Steve, my intention was not really to argue for my reconstruction of the background to Galatians, but rather to ask whether it fits with your observations. I agree that the hypocrisy referred to here is that of Peter and other Jews, and that the issue here is association, not circumcision. All this is perfectly consistent with my reconstruction of the background to the letter. For the evidence for my proposal you will need to go back to my earlier posts, here and also see the analysis here. Incidentally, my proposal has quite a lot in common with Hunn's recent proposal here.

By: Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Sat, 01 May 2010 13:51:36 +0000

HI Richard. I think there is room to include v. 13 with what is corrected, but you have quite a different model of what was going on based on the “Galatians’ assumption that Paul supported Gentile liberty only to please other church leaders.” This is news to me, and beyond the plain sense of the context. Based on the thematic connections using καί from v. 13 back to v. 12, I do not see the likelihood of your proposition being either derived or really supported from this context. The hypocrisy being referred to in this context is clearly that of Peter and the other Jews. It does not seem based on circumcision, but on association. Circumcision is only used as a thematic label for the Jews from James, not in reference to the ceremonial act.

By: Richard Fellows

Richard Fellows — Sat, 01 May 2010 03:41:26 +0000

Interesting discussion. But isn’t 2:13, after all, part of the ‘proposition to be corrected’? I guess it depends on what assumptions we make about the background to Galatians, and the function of 2:11-14. I have argued e.g. here that Paul is countering the view that he believed in circumcision for Gentiles (the Galatians were thinking that Paul, to please the Jerusalem apostles, pretended to support Gentile liberty). In this passage Paul’s point is that he stood alone against Peter: “I opposed him to his face”. Isn’t it possible, then, that 2:14 corrects the Galatians’ assumption that Paul supported Gentile liberty only to please other church leaders?

You wrote, “Paul makes it clear that he did not beat around the bush, but kicked the door down”. Yes, and I think that is precisely Paul’s purpose. His rhetoric in Galatians is aimed at overturning the opposite view (namely, that he believed in circumcision).

By: Steve Runge asks what is being contrasted in Galatians 2:11-14 « Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians

Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:13:11 +0000

[...] 30, 2010 · Leave a Comment My title pretty much sums up the story. He looks at the structure of these verses in light of the problem in Galatia. In light of what has [...]