Gal. 2:11 "When Peter came to Antioch ..." When did this happen?

[Relztrah]

The title says it all. I am trying to place this encounter within the timeline of the book of Acts. Was it during the year that Paul was first in Antioch after being brought there by Barnabas? (Acts 11:26) Was it perhaps during the "long time" that Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch following their first missionary journey? (14:28) Or did it occur during the time Paul was in Antioch before commencing his third missionary journey? (18:23)

I have not consulted commentaries on this passage, but it just seems so unusual that Peter, after his revelation at the home of Cornelius and later statement at the Jerusalem Council, should at some point, possibly between those events, separate himself from the Gentiles. And he didn't just take his lunch tray to the next table to sit with the popular kids, but his prejudice was bad enough that Paul had to literally get in his face. Was he bowing to peer pressure? Am I reading Galatians 2:14 correctly, that Peter was doing the very thing he condemns at the Jerusalem Council?

Which brings me back to my original question: When did this encounter between Paul and Peter take place?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

While there are various theories concerning just how to timeline Paul's letters, to form a pattern of coherence with the events of Acts;

I believe that the events reported in Gal.2:11ff, "when Peter came to Antioch..." does correspond to the "long time" of Act.14:28, if not a little previous to that v (i.e. before Paul and Barnabas had even returned from the 1st missionary journey). Subsequent to which, we encounter 15:1 corresponding to Gal.2:12.

I believe the Jerusalem Council, reported later in Act.15, shows us a chastened Peter who brings up his own experience with Cornelius by way of reminder to the body. He was in the wrong some weeks and months earlier, when he was reacting to the bluster of the so-called "Jacobin faction," and separating himself from the very people he had till recently been treating as full-brethren if without circumcision.

For him, then, to take Paul's side of the question in Act.15 and to point to the lesson (or a derived lesson) that he was privileged to bring back to the Jerusalem church in Act.11, takes on additional significance if we know that he must have taken Paul's rebuke in Gal.2:13ff to heart. Luke doesn't supply all the Antiochean detailed background to the Council, which inclines me to think he preserved the greater part of Peter's personal dignity, and makes him completely a hero on Paul's side. Now, with the passage of time, and the collection of the whole NT, we have a full picture of what took place.

One more thing to remember: Luke does not pace his narrative all with one measure. On the whole, Acts takes place over about a 30+yr period. Act.1 covers 49days, mostly just 40days from the Ascension. Acts2 is just one day, Pentecost. Act.3 & most of ch.4 covers 2days happening a few days or weeks after the Day of Pentecost. We can probably place Cornelius' conversion (Act.10) around the A.D. 42-43 mark (taking A.D.30 to be the date of the Lord's death&resurrection), so about 10-12yrs into the NT era. The Jerusalem Council, I believe, takes place in A.D. 49, which is 6-7yrs later still.

So, we have an accordion-like narrative on a timeline; but Luke's purpose is not time intensive, but following the progress of Christ's kingdom established in the world by noting key moments and events related to that story, as told in a "you are there" manner. Pace the story another way, and it has a much different "feel." We all live now by calendars and clocks and standard cultural milestones. Without fine measuring devices, stories are more event-driven (though, Luke does manage to give some notices of the passage of time which can be further nailed down by means of archaeology, etc.).

It was a major shift in the Jewish mindset, even for those who were most willing to follow Jesus' new program, to take a fundamentally different attitude toward the Gentiles. The whole issue of Law keeping (of which circumcision was a token) was quite significant. Were the Gentiles accepted of God in full without first becoming Jewish? Were they "second-class" Christians if they were not circumcised? The separation laws that had been fundamental to Israelite national identity as distinct from the rest of humanity had stamped them on the psyche of the religious-Jewish mind. But Moses works for Jesus (Heb.3:5), not the other way.

We think the pathbreakers in Antioch and elsewhere are so normal; we relate to them so well. Sure, from the standpoint of 20 centuries. But in the 1st century, not so normal, not so typical until Gentiles were outnumbering Jews in every Christian congregation everywhere. Given the pressures of the changes that were transforming the church from a Jewish-centric entity to a transnational presence, it is not surprising that Peter stumbled. Peter is as much to be respected for his great acts of repentance, as for his important moments of leadership.

 

[Relztrah]

Thank you for this thorough and helpful explanation. Your insight into God's word is a gift to the PB. In gratitude I have made a donation.