How hypocrisy viewed during the Apostles’ era and when The Incident at Antioch occured?

Faith & Science Conversation
1

Please bear with me, this is going to be a long text.

I’m having difficulty understanding Galatians 2:11-13 as I couldn’t come to a conclusion that hypocrisy was present in that incident. Allow me to first share my cultural perspective on hypocrisy.

In my cultural viewpoint, it’s inappropriate for Mr.X to immediately judge Mr.Y as a hypocrite. Mr.X should first to know the reason behind Mr.Y’s action on that specific day. Only if Mr.X frequently witnesses Mr.Y act which not align to what he used to say/believe, then Mr.X may conclude that Mr.Y is a hypocrite. In summary, my cultural lens emphasizes understanding context and consistency before judging someone as a hypocrite.

Paul revealed of what’s in his mind: “it’s because Peter was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group”. In my cultural perspective, this assertion lacks evidence; it merely exists as a thought in Paul’s mind regarding Peter’s fear of the circumcision group.

Anyway, even if there were evidence, such as a verse where Paul privately asks Peter, “Why did you separate yourself?” and Peter responds, “Because I was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group”, my cultural viewpoint still deems it inappropriate for Paul to judge Peter as a hypocrite if it is because afraid/pressure/fear of something. So, because of my cultural view, I can’t see that hypocrisy was present in the “Incident at Antioch”.

I asked ChatGpt if there is a different view of hypocrisy from each culture.
ChatGpt’s answer is Yes. Something like below:

  • A. In one culture, a strict rule about hypocrisy is applied without consideration for the reasons behind an action. People in this culture can directly judge Mr. X as a hypocrite based on a single observation of Mr.X’s action contradicting his beliefs or statements. This judgment is immediately accepted as truth by the people in this culture.
  • B. In another culture, a reason is demanded before judging Mr. X as a hypocrite if it’s based on a single observation of Mr. X’s actions contradicting his beliefs or statements (B is similar to my cultural view).

Up to this point, my focus has been on Paul’s judgment of Peter as a hypocrite (what is in Paul’s mind).

=========================================================

Now about the confrontation (Paul’s rebuke).

Paul confronted Peter because Peter’s refusal to eat with the Gentiles contradicted what Peter had long since recognized: that the Gospel was for Gentiles too. Because of the vision Peter had received at the house of Simon the tanner (Acts 10:9–15, 28), he felt free to eat with the Gentiles. Galatians 2:11-14 – Paul Opposes Peter - Seeking Our God

From the article’s quote above, my own conclusion is that the article places “The Incident At Antioch” after Peter’s Cornelius event (following Peter’s vision).

However, when I read verse 14:

“If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

Based on the verse above, it seems to me that the incident happened before Peter’s vision.

So, I asked ChatGpt to provide a conclusion from the same rebuke (verse 14) with two different conditions: (X) The incident happened before Peter’s vision. (Y) The incident happened after Peter’s vision.

Here is ChatGpt’s answer for X:

  • If the incident occurred before Peter’s vision, it would suggest that Peter, despite living among Gentiles and adopting some aspects of their lifestyle, still held onto traditional Jewish beliefs to force circumcision for Gentile converts. This interpretation aligns with Paul’s rebuke, questioning why Peter force Gentiles to conform to Jewish practices when he himself did not do so (eating together with Gentiles).

To me, it’s interesting result about Peter where if X the result is “bla” and if Y the result is “blo” although both based on the same rebuke words.

I’ve searched the internet quite deep, but I fail to find the things I’d like to know. So there are two key points in my question :

    1. Is there any writing from Church Fathers about the cultural view of ‘hypocrisy’ during the Apostles’ era?
    1. Regarding Paul’s rebuke, was the “Incident At Antioch” before or after Peter’s vision?

Thank you and I’m sorry if it’s too long.

1 Like
2

In Greek a “hypocrite” was an actor. In Greek theatre, actors always wore masks. So the term could also serve as a metaphor for persons who played a role in public that differed from their own character. “Why” someone wears a mask is not that important.

Peter behaved differently in the presence of the Christians from Jerusalem, so in that sense he could be called a hypocrite. He didn’t want to show the men of James his “real face”.

I don’t know about the Church Fathers though.

After: Cornelius was the first gentile convert (Acts 10). Before him there were no gentile Christians.

The Incident at Antioch

The crisis at Antioch, reported by Paul in Galatians 2, was sparked by the issue of table fellowship: representatives of James (brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church) encouraged the Jewish Christians in that community to observe Jewish dietary laws, even though this required them to separate themselves from the gentile Christians when the community shared meals together, including, we might assume, celebrations of the Lord’s Supper.

Such a policy probably was presented as a mediating “separate but equal” position: let the gentiles who become Christians live as gentiles, and the Jews who become Christians live as Jews. Paul would have none of it, rejecting both parts of that proposal as hypocrisy (Gal. 2:13).

Let the Gentiles Who Become Christians Live as Gentiles.
Paul thinks that it is hypocritical to claim that the policy of separate tables allows gentiles to live as gentiles, because the actual effect is to “compel the Gentiles to live like Jews” (Gal. 2:14). He does not explain exactly why that is the case, but the point may be that the policy marginalizes gentiles within the community and puts social pressure on them to become law-observant like the respected church leaders who eat at the Jewish Christian table.

Let the Jews Who Become Christians Live as Jews.
Paul claims that Jews who become Christians actually live as gentiles in the only sense that matters: they live as people who have been justified by faith in Jesus Christ, just as the gentiles are (2:15– 16). It is hypocritical for Jews to live as gentiles in this sense (trusting in Christ for justification) and still claim to be living as Jews just because they keep dietary laws.

The book of Jubilees, written around the time of Jesus (give or take fifty years), offers this advice to Jews:
• Separate yourselves from the gentiles, and do not eat with them.
• Do not perform deeds like theirs, and do not become associates of theirs, because their deeds are defiled, and all of their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable. (Jubilees 22:16)

Compared to that standard, Paul’s opponents probably thought that they were being generous in sharing a meal with gentiles, albeit at separate tables. But Paul thought that “the truth of the gospel” demanded that Jews and gentiles eat together without any distinction (Gal. 2:11–14; see also 3:28).

(Mark Allan Powel, Introducing the New Testament, 331.)

4 Likes
3

Thank you for the answer, ivar.

That’s the aspect that confuses me because I’m unable to see the hypocrisy present in that event due to my cultural view.

Am I correct to conclude that the cultural view at that time was like A?

  • A. In one culture, a strict rule about hypocrisy is applied without consideration for the reasons behind an action. People in this culture can directly judge Mr. X as a hypocrite based on a single observation of Mr.X’s action contradicting his beliefs or statements. This judgment is immediately accepted as truth by the people in this culture.

If yes, then I think the same can be applied to Paul. For example …
Paul preached: “If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all”. Mr. X frequently heard Paul’s preaching. But one day (single observation, ignoring the reason), Mr. X sees that Paul circumcised Timothy. So, it is rightful for Mr. X to judge that Paul is a hypocrite.

Paul preached: “The Law was obsolete". Mr. Y frequently heard Paul’s preaching. But one day (single observation, ignoring the reason), Mr. Y sees Paul purify himself along with some people and enter the temple. So, it is rightful for Mr. Y to judge that Paul is a hypocrite.

I thought I was alone in thinking this way. But after quite deep digging on the internet, I found a similar thought from Jerome. There, Jerome say about the reason behind Paul & Peter’s act:

We have learned, therefore, that through fear of the Jews both Peter and Paul alike pretended that they observed the precepts of the law

But too bad, I still can’t find in Jerome’s letter if Jerome admit that both Paul and Peter are hypocrite on their inconsistent act (single observation) because of fear.

=========================================================

Thank you for the answer, ivar.
I will try to dig the internet deeper about it.

=========================================================

About the quote from Mark Allan Powel you provide:

The crisis at Antioch, reported by Paul in Galatians 2, was sparked by the issue of table fellowship: representatives of James (brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church) encouraged the Jewish Christians in that community to observe Jewish dietary laws, even though this required them to separate themselves from the gentile Christians when the community shared meals together, including, we might assume, celebrations of the Lord’s Supper. (Mark Allan Powel, Introducing the New Testament , 331.)

Am I correct in my own conclusion below?

Before Peter was in Antioch, in front of James and James’ group, Peter showed himself to agree with the bold text in the quote above. But actually, inside Peter’s mind, he didn’t agree with it because, to Peter, it was okay to eat together with the Gentiles.

So… Peter frequently preached to the Jewish Christians that “Jewish Christians have to observe Jewish dietary laws and they are not allowed to eat together with Gentiles.”

One day, when Peter visited Antioch, he showed his “true colors” (it’s okay to eat together with the Gentiles). But then, soon after James’ circumcision group arrived, Peter separated himself because he was afraid that the group would find out that actually, Peter didn’t agree with what he had preached to the Jewish Christians.

Please cmiiw.

1 Like
4

In Galatians 2, Paul narrates a sequence of events.

  1. He came to Jerusalem to inform the apostles about his way of preaching the Gospel (Galatians 2: 1-2).
  2. There was some controversy with regard to circumcision of Gentile Christians, but the leaders of the Church - James, the brother of the Lord, Peter, and John - have finally agreed with Paul that the Mosaic rites are not necessary for Gentiles to be accepted into the Christian community (Galatians 2:3-10).
  3. After that, Peter came to Antioch and behaved contrary to what he had earlier acknowledged. Therefore, Paul has fittingly called him a hypocrite (Galatians 2:11-14).

In short, Paul would have no ground to accuse Peter if they had not previously discussed this very issue in Jerusalem. But Paul knew that they had discussed the issue, and had come to an agreement.

P. S. The eating habits or preferences of Peter were not problematic per se. The real problem was that Peter was casting doubt on communion between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians by openly separating from the latter.

3 Likes
5

Thank you for the answer, Nicholas.

Yes, and Paul said that Peter had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the circumcised.

Since Paul said that the leaders divide themselves into two different nation to preach (Jews and Gentiles), where Peter is to preach the Jews, then I think Peter showed himself that he agree with the leaders decision, but in Peter’s mind actually he doesn’t agree with that.

If that is the case, then even before Peter visit Antioch, Peter is already not genuine. He is already a hypocrite in that private meeting event.

I don’t understand, if Peter is to preach the Jews, and when the Jews arrive Peter want to join them, what is wrong with that ?

Paul himself say that Peter is to preach to the Jews. So Paul has no ground to judge Peter as a hypocrite, hasn’t he ? Or did I miss something here ?

And the agreement is :
Peter is to preach the Jews, where Paul + his gang should go to the Gentiles, and Peter + his gang to the circumcised.

Please understand, here I’m not focusing about the effect: “casting doubt on communion”. My focus is about Paul judge Peter as a hypocrite, Nic. So…

So, I’m sorry as I still don’t understand, Nicholas.
Peter is charged to preach to the circumcised, then how Peter separating himself from the Gentiles when the circumcision group from James arrive = hypocritical act ? Is it because the cultural view during that time, Mr.X is rightful to judge Mr.Y as a hyporcite based on a single observation act of Mr.Y because Mr.Y is affraid of something ?

6

Happy to help, this is an interesting topic!

In the first century hypocrisy did not always have to mean you contradict what you say or belief. The Pharisees said that you should pray often and give to the poor. And they indeed did that themselves. But Jesus still called them hypocrites. Why? Not because they practised what they preached. But because they did it for the wrong reasons. They did it to gain status among the people.

So, they did not do all these things out of love for others, but out for love of themselves. In that way they were hypocrites, actors. They acted as if they cared for the poor. Just as actors play their part to gain fame among their audience. In reality, the Pharisees may well have had quite some disdain for the common people.

Then the officers returned to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, “Why didn’t you bring Him in?” “Never has anyone spoken like this man!” the officers answered. “Have you also been deceived?” replied the Pharisees. “Have any of the rulers or Pharisees believed in Him? But this crowd that does not know the law, they are under a curse.” (John 7:45-49, BSB)

There are also different ways to understand Peter’s fear. F.F Bruce suggests “Peter and Barbabas might have pleaded that their action was undertaken out of consideration for weaker brothers, but Paul saw their action as a threat to gospel liberty for gentiles.” (The Book of the Acts)

Nonetheless, it makes sense that Paul connected the arrival with the Jews from Jerusalem with Peter’s change of behaviour.

Just as parents can guess what’s going on in their child’s mind when he or she suddenly behaves quite differently than normal when talking to a particular boy or girl at church haha. Some things are too obvious to not be noticed.

Timothy had a Jewish mother, so Paul’s view that gentiles should not circumcise themselves does not apply 100% to this case. But I get your point.

I think this and the case of Acts 21:20-26 are explained by what Paul writes here:

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

(1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

I think this is not the case, but I am going to do some more reading. I will come back later on this.

2 Likes
7

There are the words of Paul that you seem to overlook: “how can you compel the gentiles to live like Jews?” (Galatians 2:14 NRSVue; literally, it is written there “compel to Judaize, Ἰουδαΐζω”). Either Paul quarreled with Peter without even being aware of what the point of contention was; or you put it wrong when you interpret the behavior of Peter.

Let’s return to the agreement between the leaders of the Church (James the brother of the Lord, Peter, and John) and Paul. This agreement stipulated that the Christian converts from Gentiles didn’t need to be circumcised (Galatians 2: 3) - that is, they were not required to become Jews. Thus the controversial issue was settled - the leaders of the Church have conceded that Paul’s way of Gentiles’ conversion without turning them into Jews was legitimate, and that he could continue his mission (Galatians 2:9).

And after that Peter refuses to eat with the Gentile Christians! You may think that it was only about his personal preferences - but it was not. What was the church meal in the epoch? It was, simultaneously and inseparably, both a communal meal and the celebration of the Eucharist (cf. 1 Corinthians 11: 20-33). Thus, the essence of the Antioch Incident was that Peter decided to abstain from the Eucharistic communion with the Gentile Christians. To abstain from Communion with some people is always a meaningful statement that invariably implies a refusal to consider these people the members of the (same) Church.

So, Peter’s behavior was a silent but explicit declaration that only the Jewish Christians were Christians, whereas the Gentile Christians were still required to complete their conversion by circumcision, by becoming Jews. That’s why Paul accused him of compelling the Gentile Christians to become Jews.

Now, what about hypocrisy? In Jerusalem, Peter agreed with Paul. But now, in Antioch, in the presence of the Jewish Christians who championed the strict observance of the Mosaic Law, he either retracts or conceals his own position. It seems natural to assume that this volte-face was either duplicity or hypocrisy.

2 Likes
8

Thanks for your response, ivar

Yes… that’s what I mean from my two quote below, ivar.

=============================================================

The Pharisee example I apply it to Peter as below:

Before Peter is in Antioch, Peter acted as if he agree with the Jews-Christian (that Jews don’t eat together with Gentiles) in front of the Jews. But in his mind, actually he doesn’t agree with that. Peter’s “real face” is actually: it’s OK to eat together with Gentiles.

So… when Peter is in Antioch, before the Jews of James arrive, Peter show his “real face”, he eat together with the Gentiles. Then when the Jews of James arrive…

That’s why he separate himself from eating together with the Gentiles.

===================================================================

Yes, that’s similar with the letter from Jerome I read.

In Jerome’s letter, Jerome “defend” Peter that Peter’s act in Antioch incident is just the same with Paul’s act in another occasion.

I didn’t find the word “hypo” is mentioned in Jerome’s letter. But still to me, I’d like to say:
If Peter’s act in Antioch is rightful for Paul to judge Peter as a hypocrite, then Mr.X who hear Paul’s preaching “the law was obsolete”, later on, one day Mr.X see that Paul circumcised Timothy … it is rightful for Mr.X to judge Paul as a hypocrite.

===================================================================

Thank you for that, ivar. Because I’m not able to get the result after searching the internet if there are different “material” to preach when preach to the Gentiles --vs-- when preach to the Jews. Why I want to search about that, below is my reason:

  1. Paul declared that during the private meeting, the leaders have Paul is to preach to the Gentiles, Peter is to preach to the Jews.
  2. Although I actually not able to receive #1 yet (why the leaders create a distinction? shouldn’t they to think that “any Apostle may preach to the Jews and/or to the Gentiles” ?). Anyway, I just accept that.
  3. Hence I search the internet if there are different “material” between: when preaching to the Gentiles —VS— when preaching to the Jews.

Thank you once again, ivar.

1 Like
9

Thanks for the reply, Nicholas.

No, I don’t overlook that verse. I even mentioned it in my OP that verse 14 made me think that the incident happened before Peter’s vision … OR… maybe Paul didn’t know yet that Peter is already change. In Paul’s pov, Peter is the “old Peter” = Peter compel the Gentiles to live like Jews.

============================================================

So that’s why I wonder, are the Jews-Christian still required to obey the Law ? for example : not to eat together with Gentiles, their son must be circumcised, etc.

Since Paul declare that the leaders divide “Paul to the Gentiles - Peter to the Jews”, again, I wonder if “Jews’ son must be circumcised - Jews are not to eat together with the Gentiles” is the “correct thing” in Peter’s pov?

If bold is the case, does it mean:
that Peter’s “true face” is actually he agree with the circumcision group from James which is “Gentiles are not to eat together with the Jews - Gentiles must be circumcised” ?. That’s why when the group arrive, Peter refuses to eat with Gentile Christians ? Please cmiiw.

Before Peter visit Antioch:
Peter holds that “Jews-Christian are not to eat together with Gentile Christians”. —> you, who are a Jew

When Peter in Antioch:
Peter eat together with the Gentiles —> live like a Gentile and not like a Jew
Here Peter pretend that “Jews eat with the Gentiles is OK” to him. Hence, the Gentiles think that Peter holds that “Jews eat with the Gentiles is OK” but actually Peter’s “true color” is : Peter holds that “Jews are not to eat with the Gentiles”.

When the group arrive:
Peter refuses to eat with the Gentile Christians —> how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? —> the paraphrase of the verse: “how you show your true color in front of the Gentiles that they are not to eat together with the Jews ?”

===========================================================

My comment below is because I use my cultural pov:

A. only if Peter is genuinely holds that “GentileChristians must be circumcised and GentileChristians are not to eat together with the JewChristians”, then yes, I agree that Peter’s act is an explicit declaration to the Gentiles about what Peter holds.

BUT
B. If Peter is genuinely holds that “GentileChristians are not be circumcised and GentileChristians are OK to eat together with the JewChristians”, then no, Peter’s behaviour is not to declare what Peter holds. Yet, I admit that Peter’s behavious may cause the observer to think that Peter is genuinely holds that “GentileChristians must be circumcised and GentileChristians are not to eat together with the JewChristians” in this case. Still, in my cultural-view: “it’s not rightful for someone to judge Peter as a hypocrite” based on a single observation at thet time of Peter’s behaviour.

===========================================================

What I’d like to know:
When in Jerusalem (before Peter visit Antioch) Peter show that he is agree with Paul —> is Peter genuinely agree with Paul (that “GentileChristians are not be circumcised and GentileChristians are OK to eat together with the JewChristians”, case point-B) or is Peter actually doesn’t agree with Paul?(where actually in Peter’s mind “GentileChristians must be circumcised and GentileChristians are not to eat together with the JewChristians”, case point-A).

Thank you once again for your reply, Nicholas.

10

Remember that back that “hypocrisy” was “wearing a mask”, i.e. pretending to be something you weren’t. So while Peter had been instrumental in getting the church to see that Gentiles were welcome, and had been behaving in accord with that, when some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem showed up he changed his behavior because he wanted them to think he approved of them.

But there’s something else going on here, something I learned early in college: what you do, not just what you say, teaches. Peter’s role in leading the church was to teach, and by his actions he was teaching wrongly – and not just wrongly, he was teaching contrary to what he had been teaching before. By changing and eating only with the Jews from James he was declaring that the church was divided between Jews and Gentiles, which was the opposite of what he had said in Jerusalem not long before.

The situation with Paul and Timothy was different: Timothy’s mother was a Jew, so he qualified as a Jew. But as one who wasn’t circumcised he wouldn’t have been allowed in synagogues – but going to synagogues was going to be part of his job if he was to travel with Paul. There would be no chance of confusion since Paul’s message made it clear that Gentiles didn’t have to be circumcised, and Timothy wasn’t a Gentile anyway.

That’s what he was accused of preaching, but he never told Jews to stop honoring their customs, which included the Law – he just said that salvation was through Christ, not the Law.

But Mr. Y did not see what he though he saw – Paul didn’t enter the Temple with a Greek!

No, because Mr. Y was acting on a false belief.

2 Likes
11

That was not a hard and fast rule. They all knew that Peter had been the first to preach to Gentiles and that Paul always preached to the Jew first when he reached a new city.

Because it changed his message. Before he had been content to eat with the Gentiles, but when he switched to eating only with Jews he essentially sent the message that Jews and Gentiles can’t mix even though they’re all Christians.

That was not a decision made by anyone, it was an observation that Paul made about their main areas of work. The decision that was made was that Gentiles would not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses.

Peter was charged by Jesus to lead the whole church, not just to the circumcised.

2 Likes
12

Can’t believe I missed that!

Peter never preached anything like that, at least that I am aware of.

This is a good point. [I think I’ve been awake too long; I’m missing things like this!]

But that was never the “old Peter” – Peter was the first one to oppose that!

2 Likes
13

Hi Roymond, thank you for your response.

The thing is, I still can’t figure out that before Peter visit Antioch:

  • Hypocrite-A. Peter pretends that he agree with Paul. But actually in Peter’s mind, he doesn’t agree with Paul, because the one which Peter genuinely hold is that “Gentiles Christian must follow Jewish Law. There is a distinction between Jews and Gentiles”
  • Hypocrite-B. Peter pretends that he agree with the circumcission group from James. But actually in Peter’s mind, he doesn’t agree with those group, because the one which Peter genuinely hold is that “Gentiles Christian don’t have to follow Jewish Law. There is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles”

Then I think, Peter is hypocrite-B. Please cmiiw.

So… if it’s true that in Peter’s mind “I need to make them to think that I approve them, so I’d better separate myself from these Gentiles”, then (to me) even before Peter visit the Antioch, Peter is already a hypocrite-B.

Before Peter visit Antioch, whenever Peter is in front of James’ group, (B) Peter pretends that he agree with them in order they would think Peter approve them. But actually in Peter’s mind, Peter doesn’t agree with them.

Please cmiiw, Roymond.

I’m guessing that in your pov, Peter’s action it is because Peter genuinely want to declare that there is a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. So it is wrong for him to teach like that.

But in my pov, Peter’s action may cause an observer to think that Peter genuinely want to declare that there is a distinction between Jews and Gentiles.

And if I were to say that Peter is a hypocrite, then it’s hypocrite-B, Peter separate himself from the Gentiles is just because Peter want to hide his “true face” in front of those circumcision group from James.

That’s what I mean, Roymond. Peter’s action is for James group where Peter want to give a false-declare to the James group : “Yes, we Jews are different from the Gentiles”. But there is an effect, which is : Peter’s action may cause the observers to think that Peter genuinely want to give a true-declare to everybody that there is a distinction between Jews and Gentiles.

Yes… Peter say : He made no distinction between us (the Jews) and them (the Gentiles). Yet, when Peter is in front of the James group, even before Peter visit Antioch, IMO, Peter behave as if he agree with this group. Hypocrite-B. This is the only way for me to have Peter as a hypocrite. Peter pretends to be something he weren’t in front of James group.

The question arise in my mind is:
Does Paul genuinely agree that the Jews should still be under the Law ?

I have the answer from you:

Some of their customs which I know: Circumcision and Gentiles are not to eat together with the Jews (the Jews make a distinction between Jews and Gentiles). So, my own conclusion from your quote above, the answer to my question is: *Yes… Paul genuinely agree that the Jews should still do the Circumcision and Gentiles are not to eat together with the Jews (make a distinction between Jews and Gentiles)

Please cmiiw.

OK. But is the teaching just the same ? I mean Paul preach in front of the Gentiles and the Jews something like this: Take notice: I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised or you circumcise your son, Christ will be of no value to you at all

Illustration example (of my cultural-view):
Mr. X preach “give money when you face a beggar ask for it”. But inside Mr.X heart, he doesn’t agree with that. He say that just for famous or in order others think he is good, etc. So, he is not genuine on what he say. Even if he is frequently seen giving money, he is still a hypocrite.

“hypocrisy” was “wearing a mask”, i.e. pretending to be something you weren’t.

So, to me, “wearing a mask” is not about Mr.X give/not give money to a beggar, but when Mr.X say/preach “give money when you face a beggar ask for it”. Mr.X pretends to be something he weren’t … he is not genuine when he preach that.

Assume, Mr.Y doesn’t know Mr.X “true face”… Mr. Y believe that Mr.X is genuine when he preach that … one day Mr. Y caught Mr.X ignore a beggar ask him money … my cultural-view say it’s not rightful for Mr.Y to judge Mr. X as a hypocrite with just Mr. Y single observation.

But if Mr.Y know that Mr.X is not genuine on what he preach, then one day he caught Mr.X ignore the beggar, that’s just Mr.X show his “true face”. Mr.X essentially sent a message that he is not genuine on what he preach, he show himself that he is a hypocrite.

====================================================================

Oops… sorry. Because I thought it is the leader’s decision from Galatians 2:7.

I thought (by my own conlusion) Peter’s preach something like that before Peter’s vision. I’m aware that there’s no verse for my conclusion :see_no_evil:.

I’m sorry, did you mean that if there is no Peter’s vision and visited by the angel, Peter will still go to Cornelius house and eat together there ? Please cmiiw.

==================================================================

I requote Jerome’s letter which I actually agree (but Augustine doesn’t agree :slight_smile:):

We have learned, therefore, that through fear of the Jews both Peter and Paul alike pretended that they observed the precepts of the law

Thanks.

14

Yes.

I don’t think so. Peter had lived all his life in Jewish culture with only slight exposure to the Hellenistic culture that dominated the eastern end of the Roman empire and beyond, so my guess is he was experiencing culture shock that really didn’t hit so long as all the other Christians around were Gentiles but when Jews “from James” showed up he was reminded of his roots and sort of panicked.
This is something I grasp because at one point I went to work at a church in Miami that was 75% Cuban, 10% Venezuelan, 8% Central American, 5% South American, and 2% “gringo”, where “gringo” included some Chinese. I’d spent a summer immersed in a program to learn Spanish, and at first I was comfortable there – right up until attending a conference where the “gringos” were 80% and I felt like I had one foot in each culture like one on a dock and one in a boat that wasn’t tied up, so the gap felt like it was threatening to drop me into oblivion. My initial and unthinking reaction was to withdraw into the “gringo” group that was much like I’d grown up in. My supervisor priest/pastor pulled me aside the second day of the conference and pointed out what I was doing, then said he’d seen the same thing with just about every intern or mission student or whatever who’d ever worked at the church there – and he pointed me to these chapters in Galatians and Acts.

I’d land with the second option since I don’t think Peter did it as a conscious choice, not just because of what I wrote above but because we see Peter more than once being impulsive, not thinking things through but just reacting. My view of the confrontation is that Peter didn’t even realize he’d “put on a mask” and probably felt like a complete idiot when Paul called him on it.

Ever since I read Galatians in the Greek I’ve felt this annoyance with Paul for not finishing the story! I want to know how Peter reacted! Peter’s reaction would, IMO, teach us something about responding when we’re caught in such situations.

The interesting thing to me is that it actually doesn’t matter if it was a conscious decision or not: as an important leader of the church, Peter should have been expected to think things through and act properly. But if it wasn’t a conscious decision then I find it a useful lesson for all of us to stop and think when we’re in new situation and not just react – and an encouraging one, since if Peter fell into that error we shouldn’t feel quite so bad if/when we do.

Circumcision was a matter of the Law, but not eating with Gentiles was not a universal Jewish custom – we know this from studies of Jewish practices during late second-Temple Judaism. This was especially true outside of Judea which sort of suggests that the more Jews who lived as neighbors the less likely they were to eat with Gentiles. Though there’s another twist to it: Jews almost never ate with Gentiles in the Gentiles’ houses but would at their own houses or in neutral places (I’ll note that the definition of “neutral” required no images, i.e. no pictures or statues of humans, and no religious displays of any kind). There is no command to not eat with Gentiles, and in fact when Jews owned Gentile slaves the slaves were expected to eat with the family.

So I think the important point here is that Peter was interacting with Jews “from James”, which suggests they were quite conservative; they thus would have tolerated eating in the same room as Gentiles but not sit with them. Thus they could likely have had a custom of not eating with Gentiles, but that does not make it a universal Jewish custom.

I think that here the point that was made about this involving the Eucharist by nicholas becomes important: if this was not just a meal but a meal that ended with the Eucharist then Peter’s action becomes more grave.

No, there was no “old Peter” after the Cornelius encounter.

I think Jerome is wrong in that. It should be noted, though, that concerning this incident in Antioch Augustine reports that Jerome interpreted it as acting on both their parts, an invented situation set up as a teaching event. Augustine objected to this interpretation as not being consistent with the truth of scripture, but it is clear that Jerome did interpret it that way.

2 Likes
15

Thank you for your response, Roymond.

Thanks for sharing your experience so that I can understand the Antioch incident better. However, I’m sorry, because from your story, I still can’t see that you were a hypocrite in that event. What I mean by hypocrite-B is not when Peter separated himself (which I think is why you answered “yes”), but any time (including before Peter visited Antioch), when in front of the circumcision group of James, Peter pretended to agree with them (but actually did not).

Please note, I make my own assumption that when James group arrive, Peter knows them and has preached to them where Peter’s preaching is something like “the Gentiles must be circumcised, Gentiles are different with Jews, Gentiles are not to eat together with Jews”, but actually his preaching is just “a mask” to please them. Peter is not genuine on what he preaches to the circumcission group of James.

That’s what I mean. Because in my point of view, I consider Peter’s action of “separating himself” as unintentional, and in my cultural perspective, there’s no hypocrite-A or hypocrite-B. Hypocrisy is not present there. Long before Peter visited Antioch, whenever Peter had to preach in front of the James group, he preached truthfully.

Besides, if I have to accept that Peter is a hypocrite, a new question arises for me: how do people trust a hypocrite and believe in what a hypocrite preaches?

Yes, I fully agree with you. That’s why I don’t focus on Paul’s rebuke, but rather on what was in Paul’s mind when the incident happened, which he then declared in his letter that Peter is a hypocrite. To me, Paul’s rebuke is still valid without the need to judge Peter as a hypocrite (because hypocrisy is not present there). As in my previous post, I admit that Peter’s action may cause others to think poorly of him.

Ok. Thanks.

Why I agree with Jerome (on his quote I posted) is because I view Peter’s position as that of a hypocrite. As in my previous post, if Peter is a hypocrite in that event, then Paul is also a hypocrite in another event.

In Peter’s case, from Paul’s point of view (as an observer), Peter separating himself is like “wearing a mask.” Peter pretends to align with the circumcision group from James, but in reality, he does not. Peter’s action is merely to make the group think “Peter aligns with us.”

In Paul’s case, from the perspective of an observer, Paul performing the Nazirite vow is like “wearing a mask.” Paul pretends to align with the zealot Jews, but in reality, he does not. Paul’s action is merely to make the zealots think “Paul aligns with us.”

=============================================================

Now, I wonder about a hypothetical situation like this:
There are no Gentiles present. Paul and his group (including Barnabas, etc.) are eating together with Peter. Then suddenly, the group from James arrives.

What will happen if Peter separate himself then join the group from James? :thinking: :smiley:

Thank you once again for your response, Roymond.

16

Having done this, I think the following happened (relative chronology):

Peter gets a vision from Jesus: it is no longer necessary to keep the Jewish food laws. This makes it possible to come in closer contact with gentiles. Cornelius and his household get baptised. (Acts 10)

This probably causes Peter to reinterpret Jesus’ words (according to Papias, Mark wrote down Peter’s memoirs in his Gospel account):

After he [Jesus] had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.” (Mark 7:17-23, NIV)

Upon his return to Jerusalem, Peter is accused of eating with gentiles, but he explains the situation. (Acts 11)

14 years after his conversion, Paul, Barnabas and the gentile Titus go to Jerusalem to talk with Peter, James and John. The Jerusalem leaders did not compel Titus to be circumcised, even though some Christians in Jerusalem insisted on that. Paul would focus on preaching in the gentile world of Antioch and beyond. The Jerusalem leaders would focus on the Jewish world of Palestine. (Galatians 2:1-10)

Peter visits Antioch and eats with gentiles, just as he did with Cornelius. This causes an uproar among the Pharisaic Christians in Jerusalem. (Hoi ek peritomes, those of the circumcision, already mentioned in Acts 11:2 and now in Galatians 2:12.)

Just as in Acts 21:17-26, James tries to placate those Jewish Christians. He sends an envoy to Antioch to advise Peter to refrain from eating with gentiles. Peter and Barnabas agree this is the best course of action to keep the peace. They don’t want to upset the strict Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, and perhaps they also want to prevent drawing attention from the Jewish authorities. (Keep in mind, James was eventually killed by the high priest in c. 62.)

So, the men of James are not the “hoi ek peritomes” whom Peter “fears”! (Galatians 2:11-13)

Paul then reproves Peter and the other Jews. According to Paul, in this case fellowship among Christians was far more important than placating some extremist believers. (Galatians 2:14)

Paul and Barnabas start their first missionary journey. After their return, the “hoi ek peritomes” come to Antioch and start teaching the believers that the gentiles have to be circumcised (Acts 15:1-2). This is being done on their own initiative, they had not been authorised by the Jerusalem leaders (Acts 15:24; and remember the case of Titus in Galatians 2:3).

The Council of Jerusalem is conveyed. It is decided that the parts of the Torah that are still mandatory for all believers are the laws of Leviticus 17-18, which prohibit food sacrificed to other gods, eating animals that haven’t been bled out, and fornication. The gentiles shouldn’t be burdened with anything beyond those requirements. (Acts 15:3-35). These laws are repeated in the revelation of Christ to John (Revelation 2:20,24).

2 Likes
17

Thank you for your response, ivar.

It seems to me that you put the Antioch incident before Jerusalem Council.
Please cmiiw.

Ok… so, when Paul see Peter separate himself from the Gentiles, inside Paul’s mind: “fellowship among Christians was far more important than placating some extremist believers”, that’s why he rebuke Peter.

But (to me) inside Paul’s mind is not just that, but also Paul judge (1) Peter is a hypocrite and (2) Peter is a coward (afraid of the James group).

#1 is the point that I’m unable to understand. Based on my cultural-view, hypocrisy is not present in that event. And whether “fear” is present or not, I’m not sure. But (to me) most likely “fear” also not present. Should I push that “fear” is present, then I make the assumption like this : knowing that they are the zealot JewChristians group from James, Peter is afraid that those group going mad seeing him eating together with Gentiles.

And if I were to push that hypocrisy is present, then even before Peter visit Antioch, whenever Peter is in front of that kind of group, Peter pretends that he aligns with that group, while actually inside his mind he does not.

If it’s not the James group whom Peter fear, then what group whom Peter fear ?

Thanks once again for your response, ivar.

2 Likes
18

It wasn’t meant to show being a hypocrite, it was meant to show how people will withdraw from something new into something familiar. Whether or not that makes someone a hypocrite depends on the nature of the two things. In my case it wasn’t quite as bad as it was with Peter since my withdrawal didn’t call the Gospel into question. And besides, the meaning if the word “hypocrite” has changed significantly from then to now.

There’s no indication that he ever preached that, at least not after the episode with Cornelius. But he was in effect almost claiming that, by his actions.

The one instance does not define Peter (though it fits his pattern of impulsive unthinking decisions).

But this is one reason I wish we had the rest of the story. Did he apologize publicly? Did he and Paul act together to correct the situation not just with Peter but with “those from James”? Tradition says that Peter stayed in Antioch as its first bishop, so we can reasonably conclude that things got straightened out, but it would be nice to know how.

Make that “is” a “was” – past tense. Peter had in the past been an idiot, a failure, and other errors but they were all past.

Again, keep in mind that the meaning of the word has changed – in Peter’s time, it didn’t have quite the negative meaning it does now.

Paul was accused more than once of working to destroy the Law and Jewish customs. Essentially when he undertakes a vow or engages in some other Jewish ritual he is declaring that this accusation is false. As for the zealots, I doubt they would have thought Paul aligned with them; it would be more like they would grudgingly admit that he was still behaving like a good Jew – and the they would watch him like a hawk for any slips.

This fits with Paul’s statement that among the Jews he lived like a Jew and among Gentiles he lived as a Gentile. This was to show both that he honored their customs (so long as it didn’t contradict the Gospel). Though living like a Jew wasn’t the same everywhere; in Judea it would have been strict, but out in the Roman empire there were Jews whose most recent contact with the Temple was two generations earlier, who had relaxed a lot of the requirements. The same was true of Gentiles; around just about every synagogue between Spain and India there were Gentiles known as φοβούμενοι τὸν Θεόν (pho-BOO-meh-noi tohn theon), “God-fearers”, people who followed as much of the Jewish law as they could manage without fully converting, so there was a class of Gentiles already practicing Judaism to one degree or another. Thus Paul’s determination to honor the customs of each group was a lot more complex than the simple dichotomy suggests.
History note: God-fearers first appear in the first century before Christ and by the end of the third century vanish, having become Christians.

The final reason that Paul wasn’t “wearing a mask” is that he was in fact a Jew, and all Jewish Christians continued to live like Jews, at least as much as they had before. The gospel didn’t demand giving up Jewish law and customs, it just forbade requiring Gentile Christians to follow them. Thus by being “all things to all men” Paul was demonstrating the Gospel.

I suspect that Peter wouldn’t have changed his behavior given the high-level company he was keeping.

2 Likes
19

Thank you Roymond for your response.

That’s the thing which I want to understand.
The Antioch incident story made me think (because my cultural view) that “judge the book by its cover” is present. By single observation (Paul see Peter separate himself on that day), Paul judge Peter as a hypocrite.

After your explanation, (if my conclusion from your explanation is correct), in ancient times, on single observation, the observer need to know first on how bad is the effect:

  • If the effect is so bad in the pov of the observer, then it means Mr.X is a hypocrite (case: Antioch incident).
  • But if the effect is not so bad in the pov of the observer, then it means Mr.X is not a hypocrite (case: your experience story).

Please cmiiw.

While within my cultural-view, in the case of Antioch incident example, IF Peter is a hypocrite, then hypocrisy has already present before Peter visit Antioch, either it is hypocrite-A or hypocrite-B.

I understand that. It’s just if based on my cultural view and if Peter is a hypocrite.

LOL… I find myself in a confusion it is because I can’t escape from my cultural-view. Then to me, it is just something like: “Peter is a hypocrite, but Peter is not a hypocrite” :joy:

Since my focus is in “hypocrisy”, the thing which I want to know: Did Peter tell publicly that his action is just similar with Paul? —> To the Jews I became like a Jew ....//cut.... I become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. (I think this is what Jerome concluded).

I understand that. But still I’ve been thinking that soon after Paul’s letter to the Galatians is read, wouldn’t it make Christians at that time think something like : “Ooooh… it turns out all that time before Peter visit Antioch, Peter has been a hypocrite.” (?)

Please cmiiw.

One thing I know is that ‘to live like Jews’ means: (Acts 10:28, Acts 11:3)
Jews are not to enter Gentiles’ houses and/or eat together with Gentiles.

Paul preaches:
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

I assume that what Paul preaches applies to both Gentiles and Jews. From the Gentile perspective, any ‘law for righteousness’ is according to their Gentile Law, and from the Jewish perspective, any ‘law for righteousness’ is according to the Jewish Law.

That’s why I don’t understand if Paul is not ‘wearing a mask’ in that event. Because to me, when Paul performs the Nazirite vow, inside his mind, actually, as a Jew, he doesn’t hold that Christ is NOT the end of the law for righteousness.

To me, the Nazirite vow Paul performed, indirectly-outwardly shows that he agrees with ‘living like Jews’ (Paul, as a Jew-Christian, continue to live like Jews) which, for example, includes Jews are not to enter Gentiles’ houses and/or eat together with Gentiles. Hence, to me, Paul is “wearing a mask”.

Thanks for the answer, Roymond.
Assumed I accept that Paul’s judgement is correct (Peter is afraid), I wonder what Peter is afraid of. One that I can think of is maybe something like : "Peter is afraid that the group from James will beat him to death seeing him eating together with the Gentiles", that’s why he separate himself from the Gentiles.

20

I’m going to make a distinction here, based on the Greek. The words used are συνυπεκρίθησαν (syn-y-peh-KRITH-ay-san) from συνυποκρίνομαι (syn-y-peh-KRIN-o-mai), and ὑποκρίσει (hih-po-KRIS-ay). The first is an interesting word because it is a triple-compound, made from σύν + ὑπέρ + κρίνομαι: “with” + “over/beyond” + “separate oneself / respond”; leaving off the “with” part, the term ὑποκρίνομαι is most commonly used to describe playing a part as an actor, which back then was done wearing a mask. Also important of the first word is that it is both in the passive voice and the aorist tense: the first indicates that the subject is being acted on while the second indicates a on-time action, not something ongoing. So Paul is telling us that the rest of the Jews were carried along by Peter’s “wearing a mask” as a response to their arrival, yet this was something that happened for a short period of time’ he makes this more explicit in the case of Barnabas, saying “he was carried away” with them.

The point of all this is to say that Paul is not saying that hypocrisy is part of Peter’s character but rather that this was a momentary lack of judgment, a brief instance; that as with an actor, when he leaves the stage and the mask comes off his real self is seen. Paul then, though the term itself was harsh, is recognizing that the real Peter is not the one acting (briefly) hypocritically. I tie this to my earlier point that Peter’s was a sort of panic reaction, so we have:
Peter sees the men from James arrive and is carried away by his fears; the rest of the Jews see Peter’s reaction and are carried along with it; Barnabas sees their reaction and is carried away by it.

Now some theology: Saying they were “carried along/away” may seem like making excuses, but it isn’t; rather it’s an indication of how strong the “old man” in us is, such that in a crisis (however small) unless we are alert our reaction will tend to be that of the old self, the before-Christ self (once again Peter represents all of us!). This is something that happens to us, because the old self is not now our real self; and it is also something that is not permanent because our new self will win – as Paul puts it, “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

4 Likes