Stephen Carlson on Gal 2:12, and the Antioch/Sydney incident

Stephen Carlson has generously made his dissertation available online, here. On pages 162-4 he discusses the textual variants in Gal 2:12, building on his 2006 blog post. He shows that, instead of  ἦλθον (they came), Paul wrote ἦλθεν (he came), which is witnessed by most of the best manuscripts. This is an immensely important finding and gives us the following text for Gal 2:11-12.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12 for before certain people came from James, he used to heat with Gentiles. But when he came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.

11 Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν. 12 πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν: ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτὸν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς.

Carlson writes,

Paul’s account of the Antioch incident begins with a statement that when Cephas came (ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς) to Antioch, he confronted him.  After giving background information in v.12a that Cephas used to eat with gentiles before the coming of people from James, Paul restarts the account by repeating the triggering phrase ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν in v.12.  On this reading, only the arrival of Cephas triggered the incident, which is what Paul claimed in v.11.  With the ἦλθον reading, on the other hand, there are two separate triggering events for the Antioch incident.  

On any hypothesis, Paul first mentions the dispute with Cephas (2:11) and then mentions Cephas's earlier practice of eating with Gentiles (2:12a). At first sight this time jump seems unnecessary. Why did Paul not place the events in chronological order? Well, the text is explicable if Cephas's practice of eating with Gentiles was before Paul's Jerusalem visit of Gal 2:1-10. That fact gave Paul no choice but to skip back in time. Paul therefore wrote Gal 2:1-10 and Gal 2:11 in their correct chronological sequence, then went back in time to give the background information about Cephas's earlier practice in Gal 2:12a, and then resumed his chronological sequence in Gal 2:12b. He indicates that he is resuming his chronological sequence by repeating the phrase, ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν. Cephas presumably visited Antioch twice and ate with Gentiles on his first visit, but not on this second. This confirms the ἦλθεν reading and gives us the following sequence of events:

1. Cephas visited Antioch and ate with Gentiles (Gal 2:12).
2. Some men from James arrived in Antioch (Gal 2:12; Acts 15:1).
3. Paul, Barnabas, and Titus went to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1, Acts 15:2-3) and met with James, Cephas and John (Gal 2:1-10), and (then) with a larger assembly (Acts 15:4-29).
4. Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch (Acts 15:30-35).
5. Peter made a second visit to Antioch and did not eat with Gentiles (Gal 2:11, 12b)

It can be seen that the men from James of Gal 2:12 can be equated with the men from Judea of Acts 15:1. Now, Acts 15:24 suggests that James and the elders had sent these men, but had not approved their message. We therefore have no solid evidence that James opposed the inclusion of Gentiles. Placing Gal 2:1-10 after Peter's meals with Gentiles has the further advantage of explaining why Peter changed his policy. Paul had graciously agreed to take over Peter's tasks among the Gentiles, allowing Peter to focus exclusively on the Jews (Gal 2:7-9), so it was subsequently expedient for Peter to eat with Jews.

Carlson concludes that, "Instead of being intimidated at Antioch into changing his mind, Cephas came to Antioch with no intention of eating with the gentiles." I fear that Carlson has gone beyond the evidence here. Cephas could have decided not to eat with gentiles after finding members of the circumcision faction in Antioch. Perhaps the men from James stayed in Antioch while Paul visited Jerusalem, and perhaps they were still in Antioch when Cephas came back.

I have argued at length that the background to Galatians is as follows.

1. James and the elders wrote a decree, saying that Gentile believers did not need to be circumcised.

2. Paul visited (south) Galatia and delivered the decree, but circumcised Timothy, a Gentile.

3. Paul left Galatia.

4. Some agitators in Galatia debated with the Galatian believers:

Agitators:  You should be circumcised because the scriptures require it. Paul knows this and that is why he circumcised Timothy with the intention of preaching circumcision in his new mission fields. 

Galatians:  But Paul told us that circumcision was not necessary.

Agitators:  He does not really believe that. He delivered the decree out of loyalty to the Jerusalem church leaders (who are not experts in the scriptures). He preaches against circumcision to you because your territory comes under the jurisdiction of the Jerusalem church.

This ties in nicely with the  ἦλθεν reading of 2:12, which exonerates James. This dramatically changes our understanding of why Paul brings up the Antioch incident. It is usually supposed that Paul is here trying to discredit Cephas. However, on my hypothesis, Gal 2:11-14 serves to show the Galatians that Paul's support for Gentile liberty was genuine and not just motivated by a desire to please Cephas and the other Jerusalem church leaders. To illustrate this I will quote the "Sydney incident", which is part of an account of someone's experience in the Australian army:

One evening my section was on a boys night out on the town in Sydney, doing bit of a pub crawl. I was not a heavy drinker, so I was the only sober one in the group by 9. 00 p.m. In one of our excursions across a park, several of us walked passed a couple of gay men innocuously holding hands as they strolled through the park. As they walked by, however, one of my group (the highest ranked member in fact) began yelling all sorts of hateful things interspersed with vicious expletives at them. He pushed his way over towards them as the couple quickly hurried their pace. Sensing the potential for fruitless violence at two innocent citizens, I grabbed my superior (and let it be known that this guy was built like Sylvester Stallone in his 80s physique) and dragged him back towards the group

Now, why did the author write this? At first sight it might appear that his purpose was to show that the Australian army contains drunken homophobes, even among the higher ranks. However, the original readers of this piece, which was written by a famous biblioblogger, knew the background: the blogger had been accused of bigotry and was writing to have us believe that he was not homophobic. This piece is not about the Australian army at all. It is about the blogger himself. In the parentheses he slips in the key pieces of information that he wants us to know: he had courageously been the first to take a stand against homophobia by taking on a man who was his superior officer and was aggressive and built like Sylvester Stallone. The emphasis in this story is on the commitment of the author.

Similarly, Paul illustrates his own commitment to Gentile liberty by bringing up the Antioch incident. He slips in the facts that he had taken on Peter, a high ranking apostle, and had opposed him to his face. He lets the readers know that he had been the only one to take a stand and had opposed Peter in the presence of all. All this is written with the sole purpose of demonstrating the genuineness of his commitment to Gentile liberty. He later reinforces the point by pointing to his persecutions (Gal 5:11) and wounds (Gal 6:17). Both the blogger and Paul have had their commitment questioned, and both respond by pointing to the physical risks that they took and the fact that they had taken a solitary stand on the issue in question and had done so against an authority figure.

How Acts explains Galatians

Paul's letter to the Galatians is often used to argue that Acts is not historically accurate and cannot have been written by a companion of Paul. In this blog post I bring together some observations that show that Galatians has been badly misunderstood and that it actually confirms the historicity of Acts.

Paul wrote Galatians, especially chapters 1 and 2, to respond to the Galatian believers' misunderstanding of the relationship between himself, the gospel of Gentile liberty, and the Jerusalem apostles. But what exactly was the misunderstanding? The first column in the table below shows the conventional reconstruction of the beliefs of the Galatians. My own reconstruction of their views is shown in the second column.

The conventional assumptions about what the Galatians were saying	The new view about what the Galatians were saying
"The Jerusalem church leaders are a higher authority than Paul on the circumcision question."	"Paul is a higher authority than the Jerusalem church leaders on the circumcision question."
"Paul is against circumcision."	"Paul is in favor of circumcision (so it is OK to be circumcised)."
"Paul preaches a law-free gospel in Galatia, against the wishes of the Jerusalem apostles."	"Paul preaches a law-free gospel in Galatia to please the Jerusalem apostles."
"The Jerusalem apostles are in favor of circumcision (so it is OK to be circumcised)."	"The Jerusalem apostles are against circumcision."

It can be seen that I have reversed all the usual assumptions. Most commentators assume that the Galatians thought that Paul was a disloyal apostle of the Jerusalem church leaders and that he preached a law-free gospel in Galatia against their wishes. I propose that the Galatians assumed that Paul was a loyal envoy of the Jerusalem church leaders and that he preached a law-free gospel in Galatia against his own convictions. Paul argued against circumcision in Gal 3-6, but before he could throw his authority behind this law-free gospel, he needed to show that he was writing out of conviction and not just playing the loyal apostle of the Jerusalem church leaders. This is why he distances himself from the Jerusalem church in Gal 1-2, I suggest. Paul's dilemma when writing Galatians is that almost anything that he might write could be dismissed by the Galatians as motivated merely by a desire to honor Jerusalem's jurisdiction over Galatia. Paul's views against circumcision in the letter will carry weight only if he can first establish that they are indeed his sincere views.

Let us look at the four rows in the table in turn.

"Paul is a higher authority than the Jerusalem church leaders on the circumcision question."
The circumcision debate in Galatia focused on the scriptures (see Gal 3:6-4:31). The Galatians will have known that Paul was well educated in the scriptures (see Acts 22:3, Gal 1:13-14, and Paul's letters generally). Peter and John, at least, were uneducated (Acts 4:13). Therefore the Galatians probably considered Paul's opinion on the circumcision question to be more authoritative than that of the Jerusalem church leadership.  The fact that he had helped to found the churches of Galatia will have added to his authority there. It is true that the Jerusalem apostles had been close to Jesus during this life, but no-one appealed to the teachings of Jesus to settle the circumcision debate, as far as we know.

"Paul is in favor of circumcision (so it is OK to be circumcised)."
Gal 5:11 reads,

But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision?

The two instances of the word "still" (ἔτι) naturally refer back to the last common point of reference between Paul and the Galatians: his last visit to Galatia. This verse suggests that
1) Paul had, in a sense, preached circumcision during this last visit to Galatia
2) Paul had also preached against circumcision at the same time and had been persecuted because of it
3) the Galatians were believing that Paul had preached only circumcision since leaving them. Paul argues that this cannot be the case because the persecution has not stopped.

The events of Acts 16: 3-10 fit perfectly with Gal 5:11 and explain how the Galatians' confusion arose.

3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and had him circumcised because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4 As they went from town to town, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. 5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith and increased in numbers daily. 6 They went through the region of  Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. 7 When they had come opposite Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them, 8 so, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. 9 During the night Paul had a vision: there stood a man of Macedonia pleading with him and saying, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." 10 When he had seen the vision, we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia, being convinced that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them. (Acts 16:3-10)

Paul delivered the decisions of the elders, to the effect that circumcision was not necessary, and I suggest that Paul was persecuted because of it. At the same time Paul circumcised Timothy in preparation for the onward journey and this might have suggested to the Galatians that Paul was in favor of circumcision and planned to preach circumcision in his new territories. The decision of the missionaries to go beyond Asia, without preaching there, may have contributed to the Galatians' suspicion that Paul intended to preach circumcision in his new mission field: the geographical jump would have given Paul the opportunity to switch his teaching without it being immediately obvious that he had done so. The Galatians could have reasoned, "Paul had Timothy circumcised and then went off with him to lands beyond Asia, without telling us exactly where he was going, because he intended to preach circumcision in his next mission field. He preaches a law-free gospel to us, but he will preach circumcision in his new territory since it will fall under his jurisdiction, now that he is the leader of the missionary team". Paul, writing from that mission field, answers, "If I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted".

Gal 6:17 reads, "From now on, let no one make trouble for me; for I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body". This further suggests that Paul's commitment to the law-free gospel is being questioned in Galatia. He is saying, "my wounds prove my commitment, so let no one question it." The thought here is  very similar to 5:11. Paul corrects the view that he believes in circumcision also in Gal 1:8-9 (see the table below). Now, the color-coded table at the end of this post shows that Gal 1:8-9, Gal 5:11, and Gal 6:17 all occur at the same location in Paul's sequence of thought and this confirms that they serve the same function.

The confusion about what Paul actually  believed is evident also in 1:7 and 5:9, which also appear at the same place in Paul's sequence of thought (see the color-coded table at the end).

In Galatians Paul presents himself as an uncompromising supporter of a Law-free gospel (Gal 1:8-9; 2:4-5; 2:11-14; 5:2-3; 5:12). The Paul of Galatians takes a more extreme position than does the Paul of Acts or indeed the Paul of the other letters. This is explicable if Paul wrote Galatians to correct the view that he believed in circumcision. See the discussion below for more on how Paul uses the Antioch incident of  Gal 2:11-14 to prove his commitment to a law-free gospel.

"Paul preaches a law-free gospel in Galatia to please the Jerusalem apostles."

How did the Galatians explain why Paul preached a law-free gospel to them? Paul's law-free gospel had been given to him by revelation (Gal 1:11-16). However, Paul rarely talked about his revelations (2 Cor 12:1-6), and the fact that he must write Gal 1:11-16 suggests that he is informing the Galatians about it for the first time. Therefore it is unlikely that the Galatians already knew that Paul had received his law-free gospel by revelation.

Now, the (south) Galatian towns where evangelized by Barnabas and Paul. Acts 14:12 tells us how the two missionaries were perceived by the Galatians:

Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.

Zeus was the ruler of all the Gods so the Galatians (probably rightly) thought that Barnabas was in charge. Barnabas himself was under the authority of the Jerusalem apostles (Acts 4:36; 11:22). The Galatians could easily have concluded (probably rightly) that the movement of Jesus-followers had not given Paul authority over the territory of Galatia and that he was obliged there to follow the doctrinal positions of Barnabas and the Jerusalem church. Paul later acted as postman for the Jerusalem church (Acts 16:4) and this will have re-enforced the impression that he was an envoy (apostle) under the direction of the Jerusalem church leaders. Envoys were expected to represent the views of those that sent them (See Mitchell's "New Testament Envoys" JBL 1992).

It is therefore plausible that, when Paul had left Galatia and traveled to Europe, the Galatians came to the view that Paul had preached a law-free gospel to them out of loyalty to the Jerusalem church - and not out of conviction. Confirmation of this is found in the table below.

NRSV text	Commentary
1:1 Paul an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—	The Galatians were saying that Paul preached a law-free gospel to them only because, as a messenger of the Jerusalem church, he was obliged to do so. Here, from the start of the letter, Paul protests that he was not a messenger of the Jerusalem church, but of God. His point is that everything that follows in the letter is written out of conviction. Many suppose that Paul is defending his authority in 1:1, but the word "apostle" simply means "one who is sent" in Paul and does not confer status (see on 1:19 below).
1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—	Here, as elsewhere in the letter, Paul has an exasperated tone. To convince his readers that he is sincere, he expresses emotion that it would be hard to fake.
1:7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.	I am astonished that yo are so quickly deserting" the law-free gospel that I preached to you "and are turning to" a gospel of circumcision, under the influence of "some who are confusing you" by saying that I believe in such a gospel (which is no gospel at all),
1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!	but a curse on us if we ever proclaim circumcision to you. Paul here shows his sincerity by calling down a curse on himself. He here writes the words "contrary to what we proclaimed to you", instead of simply, "contrary to my gospel" because he must distinguish between the gospel that he had preached to them and the gospel that they thought he believed and now preached.
1:9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!	Lest the Galatians think that Paul is faking his disapproval of them (out of obligation to Jerusalem), he repeats the curse.
1:10 Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people?	Are you thinking that I am writing all this to stay in good standing with the Jerusalem apostles?
If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ.	No, I am not a people-pleaser, but a servant of Christ,
1:11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 1:12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.	for I proclaimed the law-free gospel, not because the Jerusalem church had asked me to, but because I had received it from Christ. Here Paul uses the phrase "the gospel that was proclaimed by me" instead of "the gospel that I proclaim" or simply "my gospel" because he must distinguish it from the gospel of circumcision which the Galatians assumed Paul was now preaching in Europe.
1:13 You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. 1:14 I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. 1:15 But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased 1:16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.	Here Paul reiterates that he owed his allegiance to God, not to those who shared his gospel. He explains that, immediately following his conversion, he did not consult with any other believers in Jerusalem or Damascus about the gospel that he had been commissioned to proclaim among the Gentiles, but he went straight away into Arabia. Paul's point is that he preached non-circumcision out of conviction and not as a means to ingratiate himself with the leading Christians of Jerusalem (or Damascus). I have argued here that Aretas did not permit Christ to be preached in Arabia and that Paul was therefore the first to preach Christ there. This explains why Paul got into trouble with Aretas (2 Cor 11:32). Luke does not mention Paul's two or three years in Arabia and nor does he mention the the conflict with Aretas, presumably because he wanted to avoid inviting persecution by drawing attention to Paul's illegal preaching in Arabia. The unusual phrase, "his disciples" in Acts 9:25 makes sense if it refers to converts that Paul had made in Arabia while working in isolation from any other Christians. Paul's isolation at that time is also shown by the fact that the Jerusalem believers were not convinced of his conversion (Acts 9:26).
1:18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days; 1:19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.	Paul says that when he eventually did go up to Jerusalem, the only apostles he met were Cephas and James. "Apostles" in Paul's usage means missionaries. He did not meet the other missionaries, presumably because many of them were in distant mission fields at the time. That Paul is here limiting the term "Apostle" to missionaries is confirmed by Acts 9:27, which tells us that Paul met (most of) the eleven. There is no conflict between Acts and Galatians here (or elsewhere).
1:20 In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!	Paul declares that he is not lying, lest the Galatians think that he is telling a white lie as a loyal messenger of the Jerusalem apostles might be expected to do.
1:21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, 1:22 and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 1:23 they only heard it said, ‘The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.’ 1:24 And they glorified God because of me.	Paul says here that he had preached the law-free gospel before he was known to the Judean believers. It cannot be said that I preached the law-free gospel just to please the Judean churches, because I did not even know them at the time.
2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.	In 1:10-24 Paul supports his argument by showing that he had preached the law-free gospel before he had had much contact with the Jerusalem church. He argument does not require that he had had little contact with the Jerusalem church up to the time of writing, and he makes no such claim. Contrary to a common assumption, Paul is not obliged to mention every visit to Jerusalem up to the time of writing, and there is no reason to doubt the famine visit. Paul mentions the "fourteen years" here to show that he had preached his law-free gospel for a long time before he took the time to check that it was in line with the thinking of the Jerusalem church. He is saying, "I cannot have been preaching the law-free gospel to please the Jerusalem church for those 14 years because I was not even sure whether they shared my perspective on the matter."
2:2 I went up in response to a revelation.	2:2 does not contradict Acts 15:1-2. Paul does not mention that he had gone to Jerusalem to receive instructions from the Jerusalem church because to do so would have supported the rumor that he was motived by a desire to please them. Paul therefore gives a different, but not incompatible, explanation for his visit.
Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain.	Acts 16:4 shows that the Galatians will already have known about the plenary meeting of Acts 15:3-29 in which the Jerusalem church confirmed that observance of the Law was not required. Here in 2:2 Paul tells them that he had a pre-meeting meeting with the leaders because he was not sure what their position would be. He says this to show, once again, that he had not been preaching the law-free gospel to please the Jerusalem church.
2:3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 2:4 But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— 2:5 we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you.	Here Paul explains why he did circumcise Timothy, who was also known as Titus. See here.
2:6 And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me.	Paul says here that the Jerusalem leaders meant nothing to him. He says this not to undermine their authority, but to show that his preaching was not motivated by a loyalty to them.
2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised 2:8 (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles),	Here Paul contradicts the rumor that the Jerusalem leaders had told him what to preach. He says that they recognized the legitimacy of the gospel that he had received independently from God. It is significant that only here does Paul discuss the role of Cephas and only here does he refer to him by the name "Petros". This name, for Paul's (Greek-speaking) readers, means "Rock", and signifies Cephas's role as the rock on which the (Jewish) church was to be built (Matt 16:18). If Paul and Cephas were rivals, as some suppose, Paul would not have honored Cephas by calling him "Petros" here.
2:9 and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.	Paul shows here that the "pillars" recognized him as an equal: he was not their underling, as the Galatians supposed. There is no reason to suppose that Paul and the pillars were rivals. Rather, we should think of the pillars being happy that Paul and Barnabas were able to take over their responsibilities in Gentile lands, leaving them free to focus on the Jews.
2:10 They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do.	See my blog post here.
2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 2:12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they [he] came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 2:13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 2:14 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?’	In this passage Paul argues that, contrary to the rumor, he is firmly committed to Gentile liberty. Much of the emphasis in this passage is on Paul himself: he opposed Peter to his face, he confronted Peter "before them all" even after Barnabas and the others had been led astray. To counter the rumor that he believed in circumcision, Paul portrays himself here as an uncompromising champion of Gentile inclusion. Someone who supported Gentile liberty only to please the Jerusalem church leaders might preach a Law-free gospel and he might even risk conflict over the issue, but he would never take a stance against those same church leaders for not being committed enough on the issue. The Galatians (according to my proposal) were thinking that Paul preached the law-free gospel only out of obedience to the Jerusalem church leaders - principally Peter, the major force behind the inclusion of Gentiles (Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:7-11), and perhaps also Barnabas, who led the mission that evangelized Galatia. If Paul can recall an occassion when he actually confronted Peter and Barnabas for not being committed enough to the law-free gospel, he can use it to quosh the Galatian rumor. Gal 2:11-14 is that incident. Paul's criticism of Peter and Barnabas here shows the Galatians that he is not a seaker of their approval. The incident that Paul recounts serves to prove to the Galatians that he genuinely believed in the law-free gospel and was not just the messenger of Peter and Barnabas on the issue. See also the discussion of Gal 2:11-14 below.

Gal 1:1; 5:2 and 6:11 are shown in blue in the table below. They all begin their respective passages on the confusion in Galatia and serve to indicate to the Galatians that what follows are Paul's views, not the views of the Jerusalem apostles speaking through him.

"The Jerusalem apostles are against circumcision."

Paul (and Titus-Timothy) delivered to the Galatians the decisions of the Jerusalem church leaders (Acts 16:4). The Galatians will therefore have believed (rightly I think) that the Jerusalem leaders were against circumcision (for Gentiles of course). Many commentators, on the assumption that the Galatians thought that Jerusalem was in favor of circumcision, are surprised that Paul does not cite the Jerusalem decree to correct them. However, we should reverse the argument: Paul's silence about the decree shows that it would have been counter-productive for Paul to mention it - in fact it had contributed to the rumor that Paul wrote the letter to oppose. Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:1-32 show that the Jerusalem leaders, like Paul, believed that circumcision was unnecessary. Gal 2:6-9 confirm this unanimity between Paul, the Jerusalem "pillars", and Barnabas.

Some have inferred (perhaps correctly) from Gal 2:3 that the "pillars" would have preferred Titus to be circumcised. However, Paul himself circumcised Titus later in Galatia (Acts 16:3) after he had been named "Timothy", so it cannot be argued from 2:3 that Jerusalem was more pro-circumcision than Paul.

The Antioch incident of Gal 2:11-14 harmonizes very well with Acts, especially if we accept the better attested reading, "he came", in 2:12 (see Carlson's post here). The sequence of events is:

1) Peter came to Antioch and ate with Gentiles and then left.

2) Some men "from Judea" (Acts 15:1) came to Antioch and preached circucision, thinking (mistakenly) that they had the approval of James and the Jerusalem church (Gal 2:12; Acts 15:24).

3) Paul, Barnabas, and Titus went up to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1; Acts 15:2) to discuss the circumcision question.

4) Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch and Peter later returned to Antioch.

5) the Judeans "from James" were still in Antioch and Peter decided that on this visit he would not eat with Gentiles.

With this sequence it cannot be argued that James could not have written the Jerusalem decree, because the men "from James" were sent before the decree was written and Acts 15:24 shows that they did not have his backing anyway. Peter believed that Gentiles should be included (Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:7-11) and his lapse of courage here is completely in character (compare Mark 8:29-38; Mark 14:27-31, 66-72). There is no need to suppose that Peter's views were different from Paul's. Peter's decision not to eat with Gentiles is explained by his lack of courage and also, I suggest, by his new role. At the time of Peter's first visit to Antioch he was, presumably, involved in outreach to Gentiles, but by the time of his second visit to Antioch, it had been decided that he should focus on the Jews (see 2:9 above), so it was now expedient for him to avoid offending Jews.

With the new understanding of the background to Galatians we can no longer assume that Gal 2:11-14 is  in any way representative of Paul's relationship with Peter. There may have been occasions when Peter chided Paul for not defending Gentile liberty vigorously enough, but in Galatians Paul cited only the incident that proved the point that he need to make, and that was the Antioch incident.

It is true that there were some in the Judean churches who favored circumcision (for Gentiles) and that the Jerusalem church leaders tried to avoid offending them. We see this in Peter's behavior in Antioch. James's conflict aversion is evident in Acts 21:20-24, and the men of Gal 2:12 may have mistaken his conflict aversion for an endorsement of their mission. However, there is no reason to doubt that the Jerusalem church leaders did indeed write the decree and that it was shared with the Galatians. The Galatians will then have believed that the Jerusalem apostles and Barnabas were against circumcision.

Paul's sequence of thought

The interpretation of the letter given above is further demonstrated by a comparison of the passages that concern the agitators who were propagating the rumor in Galatia. It can be seen from the color-coded table below that Paul follows the same sequence of thought in all three passages. This confirms that the belief that Paul supported circumcision (5:11) is the background to all three passages

Conclusion

The Galatians (rightly?) assumed that the Jerusalem church required Paul to preach the law-free gospel in Galatia. After Paul circumcised Timothy, they concluded that he actually believed in circumcision and this encouraged them to consider circumcision for themselves. Paul wrote Galatians to show that he was genuinely against circumcision and persuade the Galatians not to be circumcised. Acts and Galatians are in perfect agreement.

Further reading

For more evidence that Galatians was written to south Galatia, see here.

For more evidence that Acts was written by a companion of Paul, see here, here, here, and here.

Here is a detailed discussion of Gal 5:11, and here I engage with Campbell's treatment.

Earlier posts on the background to Galatians can be found here, here, and here.

Feedback, either positive or negative, is welcome.

Gal 5:11 the key to understanding Galatians

Here I will argue that Acts 16:1-4 provides the background that explains Gal 5:11 and the whole of the letter to the Galatians.

Paul went on also to Derbe and to Lystra, where there was a disciple named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the believers in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and had him circumcised because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. As they went from town to town, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached  the apostles and elsders who were in Jerusalem. (Acts 16:1-4)

But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? (Gal 5:11)

Paul circumcised Timothy in anticipation of the onward journey and then delivered the decision of the Jerusalem elders that circumcision was not necessary. These actions appear contradictory to many commentators and we must ask how the Galatians explained them. I suggest that the Galatians reasoned,

"Paul is educated in the scriptures so he knows that circumcision is necessary. He has circumcised Timothy in preparation for the onward journey because he intends to preach circumcision in his new territory, which will fall under his jurisdiction. Here in south Galatia, however, Paul acts as envoy/postman of the Jerusalem church and obediently preaches their law-free gospel, even though he does not believe it. Since Paul believes in circumcision, it is OK for us to receive circumcised".

To put it another way, the Galatians assumed (perhaps rightly) that their churches fell under the authority of Jerusalem so that Paul was obliged to toe the (law-free) party line of Jerusalem there. When traveling to Europe, on the other hand, Paul was the leader of the missionary team and was free to preach his own doctrine, which the Galatians assumed (wrongly) (on the basis of Timothy's circumcision) would include circumcision. I have argued previously, here, here, and here, that the entire letter to the Galatians is explicable as Paul's response to this kind of misunderstanding in Galatia. Galatians and Acts are thereby reconciled. Paul distances himself from the Jerusalem church in Gal 1-2 precisely to show that he preached non-circumcision out of conviction and not out of obedience to the Jerusalem church. In this post I will show that the Galatian misunderstanding, as formulated above, produces a convincing explanation of 5:11.

Gal 5:11 refers to the time of writing, but also refers to an earlier time or times. Paul says that he is still being persecuted, which is a clear reference to an earlier time when he was also being persecuted. Similarly he says that he is not still preaching circumcision, and Paul refers here to an earlier time when he did indeed, in a sense, preach circumcision. Now, in this short, pithy argument, we should assume that the word still refers back to the same time in both cases, and it is natural that it should refer to the time of Paul's most recent visit to Galatia. Now, Paul's argument in Gal 5:11 rests on the assumption (shared by the Galatians) that he would not be persecuted if he did not preach a law-free gospel. Therefore, at the earlier time alluded to by both "stills" Paul must have been preaching a law-free gospel (since he was being persecuted) at the same time as he (in a sense) preached circumcision. The verse therefore refers, almost certainly, to the time of Timothy's circumcision, when Paul "preached circumcision" (at least to Timothy and by the example that his circumcision of Timothy set) while delivering the decisions of the Jerusalem church that said that circumcision was not necessary. The apparently contradictory simultaneous actions of Paul in Acts 16:3-4 are exactly what is implicit in Gal 5:11.

Some might argue that the two "stills" could, in principle, refer back to two different times, and that this would avoid the assumption that Paul preached circumcision and non-circumcision at the same time. This would allow two possibilities, depending on which of the two times was first.
1. Paul preached circumcision, then he preached non-circumcision and was persecuted, then (at the time of writing) he continued to preach non-circumcision and is persecuted. A difficulty here is that when Paul says that he is still being persecuted, the still here would be redundant to Paul's argument. Furthermore, we would expect Paul to say "again preaching circumcision" instead of "still preaching circumcision", since Paul would have been countering the assumption that he resumed his preaching of circumcision rather than merely extending it.
2. Paul preached non-circumcision and was persecuted. Then he preached circumcision and was not persecuted. Then (at the time of writing) he preached non-circumcision and was persecuted again. The problem here is that we have two distinct periods of persecution, so we would expect Paul to write "again being persecuted" instead of "still being persecuted".
Therefore we cannot escape the conclusion that 5:11 refers to an earlier time when Paul was seen to have been preaching circumcision and non-circumcision at the same time.

5:11 in its context
Dunn (p278) says that Paul here "turns abruptly to a different point". Longenecker (p232) says that Paul writes, "without any preparation of the reader for what follows". F.F.Bruce (p236) says that Paul's argument here is "not obviously related to anything in the immediate context either before or after". Betz (p268) writes that "Without preparation, Paul confronts the readers with a rhetorical question and statement...". As far as I know, no-one has even attempted to explain how 5:11 fits its context. This is a huge problem for the commentators' understanding of the background to Galatians, since there are strong indications that 5:11 is not a digression, but is central to the entire letter:
1. It comes between two statements, shown in brown below, where Paul calls a punishment on the "agitators/influencers".
2. In 5:11 Paul corrects the misunderstanding that he believed in circumcision and this confusion is mentioned in Gal 5:10.
3. Importantly, as the table below shows, Paul follows the same line of argument in the same sequence in the three passages where he discusses the agitators/influencers. 5:11 is not an anomaly, but has its equivalent statements in the other two passages at the same locations in the sequence of thought. I have discussed this table in more detail here.

For more on 5:11 see my review of Douglas Campbell's paper here.

Douglas Campbell on Gal 5:11

Here I review Douglas Campell's recent paper, "Galatians 5.11: Evidence of an Early Law-observant Mission by Paul?", NTS 57 2011, p325-347.

Gal 5:11 is an immensely important verse:

But my friends, why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.

ἐγὼ δέ, ἀδελφοί, εἰ περιτομὴν ἔτι κηρύσσω, τί ἔτι διώκομαι; ἄρα κατήργηται τὸ σκάνδαλον τοῦ σταυροῦ.

Here is Campbell's abstract:

Galatians 5.11 refers to Paul ‘proclaiming circumcision’—a proposition that he is concerned to refute because he constructs two compact but powerful inferences designed to falsify it. One argues from present persecution, the other from the cross. Following a precise reconstruction of these it can be shown that the three main previous interpretations of the reference of Paul's ‘proclamation of circumcision’ are dubious, whether in terms of a blatantly false charge by opponents, a phase in Paul's pre-Christian Jewish life, or an occasional apostolic mission to Jews. A fourth, embarrassing reading is more likely, especially when other comparable missionary work is considered. Early on Paul proclaimed a fully law-observant gospel to pagans that included circumcision, but then later revised his praxis.

Campbell shows (uncontroversially) that the original text contained both instances of "still" (ἔτι). He then argues (against J.L.Martyn) that the word has the same meaning (of extension in time) in both cases. Therefore, when Paul writes (5:11a) "if I am still preaching circumcision", he concedes that there was an earlier time, known to the Galatians, when he had actually preached circumcision. Concerning that earlier occasion when Paul had preached circumcision, Campbell lists what he considers to be the only three possibilities:

(1) 5.11a refers to preaching activity by Paul before his call;

(2) 5.11a refers to missionary work to Jews by Paul after his call;

(3) 5.11a refers to an early phase in Paul's missionary work to pagans, after his call, when he did expect his male converts to be circumcised (a phase that has now passed).

Unfortunately, Campbell has overlooked a fourth possibility, namely, that 5:11a refers to a recent episode in Paul's missionary work when he had "preached circumcision".

Campbell argues against (1) by pointing to the growing consensus that Jews rarely, if ever, evangelized Gentiles. He also points out that it is hard to see how pre-conversion preaching by Paul would have been relevant to Paul's debate here.

Campbell finds (2) problematic because it would make the text irrelevant to the Galatian audience. Why would Paul's Gentile addressees have cared whether Paul had preached (or continued to preach) circumcision to Jews? Also, Jews were already circumcised.

Campbell therefore prefers option (3). He suggests that, for a while after conversion, Paul believed that male Gentile converts should undergo circumcision. This means that Paul later changed his mind and Campbell cites several cases in which people have changed their minds on similar matters. He deals with other objections to option (3) and concludes that it is correct.

My assessment of Campbell's paper

The paper provides a good review of much of the discussion of this very important verse. His arguments against the popular interpretations are well made, and convincing. However, I feel that his study is incomplete, in that he has dealt with only a subset of the relevant issues and texts. I also offer some objections to Campbell's reconstruction:

1. If I have read him correctly, he proposes the following sequence of events:

a) Paul converts, b) Paul preaches circumcision to Gentiles and is not persecuted, c) Paul permanently abandons preaching circumcision to Gentiles, d) Paul visits the Galatians, e) the Galatians think Paul is preaching circumcision to Gentiles, but he is being persecuted for preaching a law-free gospel, and he writes the letter.

Paul says that his is "still" being persecuted and that he is not "still" preaching circumcision. As Campbell points out, these two instances of the word "still" must have the same meaning. They must also, surely, refer to the same earlier time, but Campbell's reconstruction does not allow this because he has the persecution begin only after the period when Paul preached circumcision.

2. According to Campbell the Galatians believed the following sequence:

i) Paul preached circumcision, ii) Paul preached a law-free gospel and was persecuted, iii) Paul preached circumcision again.

The Galatians would then have seen two distinct periods in which Paul preached circumcision. It would then be surprising that Paul says "If I still preach circumcision", rather than "If I again preach circumcision", especially as the period of persecution that would intervened between the two periods of preaching circumcision is in view  in this verse.

3. Gal 1:11-12 suggest that Paul's law-free gospel was received by him at his original revelation. Can this objection be overcome?

4. Campbell's reconstruction requires that Paul preached circumcision in the first phase of his missionary career and was not persecuted. However, we know that the persecution started very early (Acts 9:23).

5. Campbell offers no explanation for how the Galatians came to believe that Paul was preaching circumcision at the time of writing (Campbell refuses to appeal to the circumcision of Timothy and on page 339 he seems to assume (against the evidence) that Timothy would have been considered Jewish because of his Jewish mother).

6. Campbell, along with all other commentators, interpret Gal 5:11 in isolation. They fail to see its connection to Gal 5:2-10. I have argued here that the three passages that deal with the agitators, namely Gal 1:1-10, Gal 5:2-12, and Gal 6:11-17 contain the same sequence of thought. Gal 5:11 should be interpreted alongside its counterparts Gal 1:8-9 and Gal 6:17. Rather than being an aside or anomaly, as is universally believed, Gal 5:11 must be central to the background of the entire letter. 

7. On page 344 Campbell writes, "Paul's opponents are, after all, trying ot embarrass him (or worse)." There is no evidence for this. Indeed, 5:11 suggests that the influencers/agitators thought that Paul was on their side. As Nanons, for one, has pointed out, there is no evidence that they challenged Paul's authority, and it is hazardous to assume that they were "opponents".

So, while Campbell has successfully shown that the common understandings of 5:11 are problematic, I do not feel that he has yet solved the problems. I am willing to be corrected, though, and I will invite him to comment.

In my next blog post I intend to give my own interpretation of Gal 5:11.