Paul Antioch and Jerusalem

Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem

The development of Paul’s relationship
with James and Peter in the light of
Galatians 1 and 2.

David Brown
Student ID: 42603110

Submitted as part of the requirements for unit ECJS 883/881
As part of the requirements for completion of the MA (ECJS) course.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 – Jerusalem and Antioch 4

1.1 Who is Paul? Framing this study. 4
1.2 Defining an apostle 5
1.3 The Christian church in Antioch and Jerusalem 11
1.4 Leadership in Jerusalem 14
1.5 Dating and Background of Galatians 16
1.6 Galatians and Acts. 18
1.7 Paul’s Opponents. 21
1.8 Paul and Peter 22

Chapter 2 – The Jerusalem Council 25

2.1 Paul in Galatians 2:1-‐10 and Acts 15 25
2.2 Reason for the visit 27
2.3 Participants and their attitudes 30
2.3.1 Paul and Barnabas 31
2.3.2 Jerusalem leaders 32
2.3.3 The opponents 36
2.3.4 Titus 39
2.3.5 Conclusions 40
2.4 The outcome of the meetings in Acts 15. 42
2.4.1 The council proper (Acts 15:6-‐21, Galatians 2:1-‐10) 42
2.4.2 The Jerusalem decree (Acts 15:22-‐35) 49
2.5 Conclusions 52

2

Chapter 3 – The Incident at Antioch 55

3.1 Conflict in Antioch. 55
3.2 Causes of the Incident, and its key players 56
3.2.1 Table Fellowship and food laws 56
3.2.2 Table fellowship in Antioch 57
3.2.3 τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου – the men from James 60
3.2.4 The role of Peter (and Barnabas) 61
3.2.5 The response from Paul 63
3.3 Conflict 64
3.3.1 Peter before and after the men from James 64
3.3.2 Fellowship meals and Peter’s fear 67
3.3.3 Paul’s presentation of his own role 68
3.4 The aftermath of the incident 70
Bibliography 76

3

Chapter 1 – Jerusalem and Antioch

1.1 Who is Paul? Framing this study.
Paul is a figure central to the development of early Christianity, and impossible
to ignore in any discussion of the spread of Christianity in the first century. Paul
was a Jew, born in Tarsus, and initially a violent opponent of Christianity, who
would become a convert early in the movement and establish a ministry base in
Antioch.1 He visited Jerusalem on a number of occasions, though the number and
timing of these visits is a topic of debate, but primarily operated outside of Israel.
He becomes a significant figure in this period of the church as one of the first
prominent Christian leaders based outside of Jerusalem. He was not only a
citizen of Tarsus, but also claimed citizenship of Rome, which offered him some
protection from authorities in the course of his missionary journeys.2 Paul’s
relationship with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem is one that is only
addressed in a handful of Biblical texts, but is essential to understanding both
Paul and the development of the church. The strength of his relationship in
particular with Peter and James, whether good or bad, forms the background
interpreting his missionary journeys, his reception in the various places to which
he travelled, and the content of his letters. It is impossible, then, to understand
Paul, his identity or his doctrine, without placing him in this network of
relationships.
This study will address Paul’s interaction with the leaders of the Jerusalem
Church in two particular incidents, the Jerusalem Council, which will be argued
in chapter 2 to refer to the meeting recorded in Acts 15:1-‐21 and Galatians 2:1-‐
10, and in the Incident at Antioch, the name given to Paul’s confrontation with
Peter in that city, recorded in Galatians 2:11-‐14. The interpretation and outcome
of these events is hotly debated. I will argue that the opening chapters of
Galatians display a gradual breakdown in Paul’s relationship particularly with
Peter and James, leading eventually to Paul falling out with both Jerusalem and

1 J.N. Sanders, “Peter and Paul in Acts” in New Testament Studies 2.2 (1955), 134; F.J. Matera,
Galatians. (Collegeville : Liturgical Press, 1992), 24; P. Barnett, Paul in Syria: The Background to
Galatians. (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2014), 1.
2 Barnett, Paul in Syria, 15.
4

Antioch, and operating as a ‘solo missionary’ without the backing of a sending
community. To show this, I will in the first chapter establish some context for
these two key events. I will consider what is meant by the term ‘apostle’ in the
New Testament, arguing that it is a fluid term that takes its nuance from the
context in which it is used, but always carries some measure of authority. This
will serve to position Paul and his apostolic claims against those of Peter and
James. I will then consider the state of the early church and church leadership in
Antioch and Jerusalem, particularly as they are presented in Acts and Galatians.
In the second chapter, I will consider the Jerusalem Council from the perspective
of the various individuals and parties involved, concluding that while some
agreement and mutual recognition was achieved, a definitive pattern for Jew-‐
Gentile interaction within the church was not reached, leading to the conflict in
Galatians 2:11-‐14. I will argue that the decree of Acts 15:21-‐29 was in fact from a
later date, and is used here by Luke as a tool to suggest a greater degree of unity
post-‐Council than was actually evident. Finally, in the third chapter I will
consider the Incident at Antioch, arguing that Paul was afterwards alienated
from both the Jerusalem and Antioch communities, and left to pursue
independent mission alongside a parallel mission from Peter, with an ongoing
tension between the two. While the temptation is always to give precedence to
Paul’s personal testimony in Galatians over that of Acts, I will attempt to
consider both in the context of their own emphases and purposes for writing.3
1.2 Defining an apostle.

In the corpus of the New Testament, there is no clear, uniform definition of the
term ἀπόστολος or any of its derivatives, but rather the reader is left to
determine its meaning from its usage.4 Part of the difficulty in understanding the
nuance of the term stems from its lack of usage in secular Greek sources.5 The
literal meaning describes ‘one who has been sent’, though this later developed

3 J.T. Sanders, “Paul’s ‘Autobiographical’ statements in Galatians 1-‐2” in JBL 85.3 (1966), 338-‐340.
4 J.A. Kirk, “Apostleship since Rengstorf: Towards a Synthesis” in New Testament Studies 21.2
(1975), 254.
5 F.H. Agnew, “The Origin of the NT Apostle-‐Concept: A Review of Research” in JBL 105.1 (1986),
75.
5

more specifically to refer to a delegate or ambassador acting with another’s
authority. Most likely, the first readers of the New Testament the term would not
have read much significance beyond this meaning.6 With access only to a limited
range of background usage in contemporary Greek literature, it is no wonder
that Betz suggests that defining the apostolate remained as one of the most
difficult tasks in New Testament scholarship of his day.7
Several attempts have been made to find origins of the New Testament apostle
concept in earlier traditions. Lightfoot in his commentary on Galatians led
scholars in drawing a parallel between the apostle-‐concept and the ‘saliah’ of
second temple Judaism, effectively a personal proxy who acted with the
responsibility and authority of the person themselves, that is, not unlike a
modern diplomatic ambassador.8 The idea of the ‘saliah’, however, does not
appear to have been prevalent prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, though
some argue it is based on the Old Testament prophets as representatives of
Yahweh.9 Munck argues that it is precisely this prophetic tradition in which Paul
presents his own apostleship.10 While Paul may describe his own calling and
ministry using terminology reminiscent of the prophets, this is not necessarily a
result of his understanding of his role as apostle, particularly in that he uses the
term of others whose experience is not the same as his own.11 Agnew also
discusses yet another basis for apostleship, connecting it to the later tradition of
Christian Gnosticism, however this involves tracing a later tradition back into an
earlier one.12 In short, the New Testament idea of apostleship seems to be
something distinct both from the general sense of ‘sent one’ that the term
implies, and from these other traditions. In the absence of clarity as to a singular
definition, what is left is to examine the method of usage by the authors relevant
to this study, Paul and Luke.

6 H. Mosbech, “Apostolos in the New Testament” in Studia Theologica 2.2 (1948), 166, 167; Kirk,
“Apostleship since Rengstorf”, 250.

7 H.D. Betz, Galatians: a commentary on Paul’s letter to the churches in Galatia. (Philadelphia :
Fortress Press, 1979).74

8 Agnew, “The Origin of the NT Apostle-‐Concept”, 79, 81; Kirk, “Apostleship since Rengstorf”, 251.
9 Agnew, “The Origin of the NT Apostle-‐Concept”, 81, 86.
10 J. Munck, “Paul, the Apostles and the twelve” In Studia Theologica 3.1 (1949), 96.
11 See for example Romans 16:7.
12 Agnew, “The Origin of the NT Apostle-‐Concept”, 90.
6

It has been suggested that the idea of the Christian apostolate may have
originated during Jesus’ lifetime, as all three synoptic gospel writers make some
reference to the disciples as apostles.13 Of particular interest is Luke, who in
Luke 6:13 writes, “When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose
twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles”. Here he suggests first that
Jesus had a larger group of disciples from which the twelve are chosen, and
second that they alone are given the title apostle, and with it some kind of status
as the ‘inner circle’ amongst the disciples. In Luke 9 they are referred to almost
interchangeably as ‘the Twelve’ in verse 1 and ‘the apostles’ in verse 10, in the
context of Jesus sending them to ‘proclaim the kingdom of God’ (Luke 9:2).
Whatever Luke’s intention in this use of language, it must be understood against
the later disappearance of the majority of the Twelve from his narrative after the
opening chapters of Acts.14 On this basis, Mosbech argues that the apostleship
spoken of in the synoptics is a temporary role, likely in reference to the specific
earthly ministry given to them as companions of the incarnate Jesus.15 Further,
the term could easily be used retrospectively in the gospels as a way of reflecting
contemporary opinion of the Twelve as the authoritative leadership of the
church at the time the gospels were written.16 This seems less likely, particularly
for Luke who as the most frequent user of the term to describe the Twelve also
gives a prominent role to Paul at the expense of Peter and the others in Acts.
The ambiguity of the apostolate makes it hard to define exactly who was one and
what the qualifications were.17 There seems to be two ways in which the term is
applied in the New Testament, one functional, and one positional.18 The
functional role refers to apostles appointed in a local sense to perform a
particular ministry task, for example, Paul and Barnabas are referred to in this
way in Acts 14.19 This group obviously extends beyond the Twelve, and is
expandable at least in this early period of the church.20 Paul refers explicitly to

13 Munck, “Paul, the Apostles and the twelve”, 100.
14 Munck, “Paul, the Apostles and the twelve”, 108.
15 Mosbech, “Apostolos in the New Testament”, 182.
17 E. Best, “Paul’s apostolic authority” in Porter, S.E. and Evans, C.A. The Pauline Writings.
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 18.

18 Best, “Paul’s apostolic authority”, 21.
19 Taylor, “Apostolic Identity”, 103.
7

Andronichus and Junia as apostles in Romans, and on other occasions refers to
others as fellow-‐workers in a fashion that is suggestive of this ministry role.21
Paul therefore shows a more general usage of the term alongside the more
specific way in which he uses it of himself in his letters. One is about just being
sent, the other is about being commissioned and sent by Jesus specifically.22 This
latter usage is positional, carrying with it an objective authority to which Paul
may appeal. The early Christian church placed a high value on the preaching of
the gospel, and consequently part of the apostolic role developed to include
being sent out and authorized to preach.23 In Acts 13 Paul has hands laid on him
to commission his preaching, and Paul’s own account in Galatians 1 insists upon
the accuracy of the gospel he preached and its divine origin.24 It therefore takes
on a missionary sense more than one of authority, although the latter would
become evident by the time of Acts, where Luke seems to attribute a more
authoritative role.25 Of particular relevance to this debate, then, is the source of
that authority. If Paul is merely sent by the local church in Antioch, then the
authority that he has is derivative from that church. For example, in the Acts
account at the Jerusalem Council Paul and Barnabas seem to attend not in an
authoritative, apostolic role, but as representatives on behalf of the Antioch
church.26 As will be shown in chapter two, Paul himself did not share that
derivative understanding of his role as apostle.27 For him, while the role included
the duty of preaching the gospel, particularly in a missionary and church-‐
planting context, he and certain others were commissioned in a particular way to
do this core role in the early church.28 In this way, his understanding of his own
apostleship was different to the broader sense described above.29 This second

21 For example 1 Corinthians 9:6 with Barnabas. Agnew, “The Origin of the NT Apostle-‐Concept”,
89; Best, “Paul’s apostolic authority”, 14; R. Bauckham, “Barnabas in Galatians” in Journal for the
Study of the New Testament 1 (1979), 62.
22 Agnew, “The Origin of the NT Apostle-‐Concept”, 93, Mosbech, “Apostolos in the New
Testament”, 171-‐172; Munck, “Paul, the Apostles and the twelve”, 101.
23 Mosbech, “Apostolos in the New Testament”, 189; Taylor, “Apostolic Identity”, 100.
24 S. Porter, The Paul of Acts. (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1999), 73.
25 Munck, “Paul, the Apostles and the twelve”, 104; Mosbech, “Apostolos in the New Testament”,
173.
26 Betz, Galatians, 81.
27 J.A. Fitzmyer, Acts. (New York : Doubleday, 1998), 129.
28 Mosbech, “Apostolos in the New Testament”, 170, 196; Kirk, “Apostleship since Rengstorf”,
261; Betz, Galatians, 75.

8

definition of apostle, then, refers to one who, through a vision of the risen Jesus,
has become an ‘official’ witness to his resurrection and who has been
commissioned by him to preach the gospel in a way fundamental to its spread.30
The next concern for this study, then, is how that term applied to Paul in the
context of his relationship with Jerusalem.
It is highly doubtful that Paul adopted this more restrictive understanding of
apostle upon himself immediately following his conversion, but rather it reflects
a self-‐understanding that would have developed over time.31 Certainly by the
opening of Galatians he has a higher view of his apostolic calling and its
corresponding authority. Luke uses the term in describing Paul in Acts 14, which
has led some to suggest that he identified as an apostle as early as his
commission in Antioch in Acts 13:4.32 Mosbech has suggested that Antioch is
very likely the source of the early Christian understanding of the term apostle
being used as a missionary sent and authorized by a local church, and so it is
possible that Paul in the opening of Galatians is working to develop this
definition.33 He qualifies his self-‐designation as apostle in strong terms in
Galatians 1:1 –
οὐκ ἀπʼ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ διʼ ἀνθρώπου ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ
πατρὸς (emphasis mine)
the emphasis specifically on the origins of his apostolate suggesting that his
definition differs from the standard to which they are accustomed, which in the
context of its origins may be something closer to the delegate of a local church
model.34 That said, he does appear to be seeking to connect himself to an existing
understanding of apostolic authority, and using that to claim equality with Peter
and James.35 It is possible that the Galatians saw them both as apostles, however
Peter takes precedence either through his historical precedence as having been a

30 Agnew, “The Origin of the NT Apostle-‐Concept”, 77.
31 Best, “Paul’s apostolic authority”, 16
32 N. Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A study in relationships and authority in earliest
Christianity. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 90, 93.

33 Mosbech, “Apostolos in the New Testament”, 168; N. Taylor, “Apostolic Identity and the
conflicts in Corinth and Galatia” in Paul and His Opponents. ed. Porter, S.E. (Leiden: Brill, 2005),
100, 107.
35 Munck, “Paul, the Apostles and the twelve”, 100; Best, “Paul’s apostolic authority”, 18
9

companion of Jesus, or by his having ‘commissioned’ Paul upon the latter first
visiting Jerusalem, which Paul denies. If this is the case, Paul in his apostolic self-‐
definition here is seeking to determine his independence from Peter, not his
authority as a gospel preacher, which he derives from his self-‐understanding as
one entrusted with the gospel by the risen Jesus.36 That is to say, his appeal to
the Galatians is based not on the authority of his apostolate, but on the
authenticity of his gospel message, which he claims to have received from the
divine source.37 This is supported in that he does not explicitly make much of his
apostolic title where he might be expected to, such as in his confrontation with
Peter in Galatians 2:8.38 While it is possible that he is simply ‘recounting a stage
in his story where he has not yet come into an identity of apostle’, or skirting
around his apostolic credentials being denied in Jerusalem, it seems likelier that
he simply does not view the title ‘apostle’ as his primary source of authority in
this debate.39 Paul is keen to assert his apostleship in the stricter sense inasmuch
as it allows him freedom to preach, but it is not his ultimate source of identity or
authority.
Taylor argues this from the opposite perspective. He holds that Paul’s self-‐
defence is primarily in terms of his apostolate, and the authority that it brings.40
This does not seem to sit, though, with the Paul either of Galatians or of his other
letters.41 His first concern is that his hearers should not turn away from the true
gospel he taught them and so be lost (see Galatians 1:6-‐7).42 It is worth noting
that in the opening 12 verses of Galatians, Paul refers to ‘gospel’ far more than he
does ‘apostle’, reflecting his main concern.43 In Galatians, he needs to defend his
apostolate mainly to gain a foothold in the debate, but in so doing he also raises
the status of those who were apostles before him simply by underlining the

36 Taylor, “Apostolic Identity”, 99; though Betz connects these together. Betz, Galatians, 38.
37 Taylor, “Apostolic Identity”, 111, 114.
38 G. Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. (tr. E. Boring) (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1989), 37.

39 contra Betz, Galatians, 99; Luedemann, Opposition to Paul, 37.
40 Taylor, “Apostolic Identity”, 110-‐111, 114.
42 J.S. Vos, “Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians 1-‐2.” in The Galatians Debate. Ed. M.D. Nanos.
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 175.

43 B. Lategan, “Is Paul defending his apostleship in Galatians?” in New testament Studies 34.3
(1988), 417.
10

importance of the apostles.44 By excluding those who are not apostles from the
argument, Paul creates a situation where the apostolic title itself will not be
enough to carry the day.

1.3 The Christian church in Antioch and Jerusalem
At the time of Jesus and immediately afterwards, Antioch on the Orontes was the
third most significant city in the Roman Empire, after Rome and Alexandria, and
had a significant Jewish population living in the city proper.45 Josephus suggests
that there had been a large number of Gentile converts to Judaism in Antioch, in
turn indicating that many were open to the Jewish tradition.46 Refugees from
Jerusalem founded the church after persecution against the church, described in
Acts 8:1 in the wake of Stephen’s martyrdom. Luke suggests that the persecution
was directed universally against the church, but given that it was prompted by
Stephen’s speech which is critical of the Hebraic tradition, and that the
remaining members of the Twelve are allowed to stay in Jerusalem, it is more
likely that the persecution was a backlash against Stephen’s fellow Hellenistic
believers.47 As a result, they were driven out of Jerusalem and began to preach
their message of Jesus first in Samaria and then likely through Phoenicia, Antioch
and Cyprus, thus providing the seeds of the churches that Paul would first
persecute and then later join.48 Luke claims that these early churches, until
Antioch, consisted only of Jewish members, however in Antioch they began also
to convert Gentiles (Acts 11:20). This in addition to Josephus’ account of Gentile
converts to Judaism, suggest that the church in Antioch from its earliest stages
contained a large proportion of Gentile believers.49 Barnabas finds Paul in
Tarsus, and brings him to Antioch, where they are active in developing the
church there (Acts 11:25-‐26). Paul made Antioch his base, Dunn points out that

44 Kirk, “Apostleship since Rengstorf”, 260; Mosbech, “Apostolos in the New Testament”, 179;
Munck, “Paul, the Apostles and the twelve”, 109.

45 M. Slee, The church in Antioch in the first century C.E. (London: Sheffield Academic Press,
2003), 2.
46 Josephus War 7.3.3
47 Luedemann, Opposition to Paul, 42.
48 See Acts 19:19. Luedemann, Opposition to Paul, 42.
49 Slee, The church in Antioch, 24.
11

his first missionary journey is bounded by references to Antioch, indicating that
this was his sending church. Dunn also suggests that their ability to report back
to the entire church in Acts 14:27 means that the church at this stage, though not
insignificant, is small enough to meet in one place.50
Acts throughout presents Jerusalem as the ‘mother church and doctrinal centre’
for the Christian movement even as it moves into the Gentile world.51 This is to
be expected, as Christianity in this early phase found its place as a sect of
Judaism rather than a distinct movement in its own right, and so inherited much
of the politics of first century Judaism. While Antioch evidently had a number of
Gentile converts, the ties between the early Christian movement and Judaism
were sufficient that the Antiochenes would likely understand Jerusalem as the
source for guidance and direction.52 This does not necessarily imply that Antioch
was subservient to Jerusalem, however, as is argued by Weiss, though in the
context of this study, the nature of the Antioch-‐Jerusalem relationship is critical
to understanding Paul and his place in that system.53 Taylor points out that as
Antioch was a ‘foreign’ city, that is, outside of Israel, the system for interaction
between Jew and Gentile would not be the same. More specifically, the relatively
higher proportion of Gentiles in connection first with Judaism and then with
Christianity means that it would be necessary to establish patterns for such
interaction, particularly around dietary requirements and eating in fellowship.54
It is easy to imagine that conditions for fellowship in Antioch were less strict
than those in Jerusalem, and that this would be a source of tension for
relationships between Hebraic and Hellenistic Jews, and consequentially for the
church in Jerusalem and that in Antioch. The tension evident in the second part
of Acts 2, then, would be the culmination of these earlier currents.55 Paul, first by
his connections with Hellenistic believers in his early travels as a Christian, and
then by his finding a home base in Antioch, necessarily isolates himself from the

50 J.D.G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making: Beginning from Jerusalem (vol 2). (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2009), 435.

51 Fitzmyer, Acts, 539.
52 B. Holmberg, Paul and Power: the structure of authority in the primitive church as reflected in
the Pauline epistles. (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1980), 19.

53 J. Weiss, Earliest Christianity: A history of the period A.D. 30-‐150 (vol 1). (New York: Harper &
Collins, 1959), 143-‐144; Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem, 75.

54 Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem, 88.
12

core of Jerusalem leadership. 56 Having said this, in Acts 11:30 Paul and Barnabas
travel to Jerusalem to bring financial relief from Antioch, indicating a level of
acceptance both of the Antioch church and of Paul as a representative of that
community.57 As will be shown in more detailed examination of the Jerusalem
Council in the next chapter, there would seem to be a hierarchy of authority that
placed Antioch and hence other ‘regional’ churches below Jerusalem, and
particularly below the apostolic leaders of the Jerusalem church.58 It is this
dynamic that is developed in Galatians 1 and 2 as it causes Paul difficulties first
with Antioch and then with the Galatians.
There are further aspects of the relationship between Antioch and Jerusalem that
relate to Paul. In particular, prior to his conversion Paul had been an active
opponent of Christianity, and both Acts and Galatians suggest that he was
involved enough to be well known to the early Christians.59 It is difficult to
imagine that this reputation would not be known to the Christians in Jerusalem,
and that his limited time in Jerusalem post-‐conversion would not help to
improve his reputation and hence reception there.60 Neither Luke nor Paul
himself dwells on his reconciliation with the Christian believers, but this surely
would have consumed much of his early interactions with the early church. If
this were the case, the theological disputes of Acts 15 and Galatians 2 would only
arise later, after these initial relational and informative visits.61 Paul’s
relationship to Barnabas is also significant. Barnabas was the senior believer,
and senior representative of Antioch at least in the early days of his and Paul’s
ministry together.62 Further, he had a longstanding relationship with the
Jerusalem leaders. They had sent him to lead the group Antioch in Acts 11:22.63 It
is Barnabas who brings Paul into this relationship in Acts 11:25, thus Paul is the
‘outsider’ in some ways to this established and friendly relationship between

56 Porter, The Paul of Acts, 173; Luedemann, Opposition to Paul, 58.
57 Fitzmyer, Acts, 129; J.L. Martyn, Galatians. (New York : Doubleday, 1997), 207; Betz, Galatians,
103.
59 See for example Acts 9:13-‐14 and Galatians 1:23.
61 Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem, 78-‐79.
62 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 419; eg Acts 13:2, 7.
63 Bauckham, “Barnabas in Galatians”, 65.
13

Jerusalem and Antioch. This is worth remembering when division arises in the
events of Galatians 2.
1.4 Leadership in Jerusalem
Peter is clearly a central and leading figure in the Jerusalem church during the
time of the New Testament. He takes primacy in not only the gospel accounts
generally, but specifically in the apostolic lists in each of the four gospels as well
as 1 Corinthians 15:5.64 This suggests that with the first two generations of the
church the tradition of Petrine supremacy amongst the Twelve was all but
universal. Exactly what leadership in the early church means, though, is harder
to define. While members of the Twelve were certainly active in and around
Jerusalem in the early days of the church, this does not necessarily constitute a
position of formal, recognized leadership.65 Peter and others from the Twelve
were certainly respected for their authority and background with the incarnate
Jesus, as is evidenced by Paul’s defence of his own ministry and gospel in the
light of theirs in Galatians.66 There are other signs that Peter played a leading
role in the early church, and not just in Jerusalem. He is present and influential in
Antioch during the conflict there, he is imprisoned by Herod as a leading figure in
the movement in Jerusalem, and he was the one to whom Paul came for
instruction in Galatians 1:18.67 Paul clearly recognizes Peter as an early authority
in the church both here and in other letters, such as 1 Corinthians, where there is
no apparent antagonism between the two.68
As a result of tighter Roman governance and unfavourable policies by several
emperors, Jewish nationalist feeling was rising in Jerusalem from the period of

64 Luedemann, Opposition to Paul, 40-‐41.
65 R.E. Brown, Peter in the New Testament; a collaborative assessment by Protestant scholars.
(Minneapolis, Augsburg Pub. House, 1973), 46.

66 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 450-‐451.
67 The verbal form ἱστορῆσαι in this verse suggests that Paul came to Peter for some form of
information and instruction about Jesus. M. Hengel, Saint Peter – the Underestimated Apostle.
(Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 2010), 90; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 450-‐451. Likely about
Jesus’ earthly ministry, that is, the period of his life about which Paul knew less and desired first
hand information.
68 T.E. Phillips, Paul, his letters, and Acts. (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, 2009),
126, 128.
14

Caligula until the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE.69 This is
supported by Luke’s record of (presumably conservative) unfavourable Jewish
feeling towards the Christian movement, for example the persecution under
Agrippa in Acts 12:1-‐3. In the light of these two factors, it makes sense for
Christians in Jerusalem to feel pressure to prove their loyalty and Jewish
distinctiveness particularly against Roman (and hence Hellenistic in the East)
culture and society.70 This would in turn lead some Jewish Christians to stricter
observance of those laws which marked out distinctive Jewish identity, such as
circumcision and food laws.71 In this context, then, the transition in power from
Peter to the more conservative James, Jesus’ brother in the Jerusalem church is
understandable.72 This transition is seen, for example, in Galatians, between
Paul’s initial visit in Galatians 1:18-‐19 where Peter is ascendant and scholars
disagree as to whether James is even recognized as an apostle, to Galatians 2:9
where James is apparently dominant.73 The evidence for this in the account of
the Jerusalem Council is discussed in chapter 2 of this study, but here it is enough
to note that it is Peter who addresses the council first in Acts 15, but is James
who in the end carries the day.74 Certainly, by Paul’s last recorded visit to
Jerusalem in Acts 21:18, James is the senior figure whom he seeks out in effect to
report to on arrival.75 It is possible that in the light of this nationalistic fervour
Peter’s actions could be seen as too Hellenized, particularly in light of the
Cornelius account and the debate that followed. This gives reason both for his
waning prominence in Jerusalem, and further, his desire to ‘prove himself’ in
Galatians 2:11-‐14.76 There can be seen, then, both clear evidence and motive for
a transition of authority from Peter to James in Jerusalem, which Hengel places at
the latest 48 or 49CE, possibly from as early as 43, that is, well before Paul’s
epistle to the Galatians.77 Later Christian traditions support this theory of

69 Hengel, Saint Peter, 65; Slee, The church in Antioch, 33; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 480.
70 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 481.
72 Martyn, Galatians, 241.
73 Brown, Peter in the New Testament, 30; Betz, Galatians, 99; Martyn, Galatians, 204; Mosbech,
“Apostolos in the New Testament”, 192; Phillips, Paul, his letters, and Acts, 132.
74 Brown, Peter in the New Testament, 49.
75 Mosbech, “Apostolos in the New Testament”, 192; Brown, Peter in the New Testament, 47.
76 Hengel, Saint Peter, 54. Sanders suggests this is Lucan edit. Sanders, “Peter and Paul in Acts”,
135.
77 Hengel, Saint Peter, 78.
15

transition. After the disappearance of references to Peter from Acts in chapter
15, early Christian tradition places him as being active across the western part of
the Roman empire as far as Jerusalem, a tradition that is supported in Paul’s
letters. 78 In 1 Corinthians 1:12, for example, it is reasonable to assume that the
Peter faction was one influenced by his mission activity in this time.79 Based on
his presence and activity in the first half of Acts, it would be most likely that he
would continue in the same way.80 Thus it seems that James held sway from
Jerusalem up until his death, which Hengel places in 62CE, while Peter and Paul
operated elsewhere in the Empire.
As noted earlier, while leadership in Jerusalem was influential, it was not
totalitarian. James was far from a pope-‐like figure for early Christianity, and in
fact it has been speculated that the period of his leadership coincided with one in
which the Jerusalem church began to decrease in influence as the number of
Gentile converts grew outside of Israel and soon dwarfed the number of
ethnically Jewish members.81 Nevertheless, Jerusalem remained significant both
in its immediate authority and eschatological importance, and served as the
source of authority for those who would oppose Paul in Galatia and elsewhere.82
It similarly remained important for Paul in his life and journeys, and it is this
double role that caused so much tension for Paul, as he sought to affirm the
influence and importance of the Jerusalem tradition while disputing with
opponents who drew on that same authority.83 Because Peter and then James
also had limits on their direct influence, it is difficult to say conclusively that
those opposing Paul who claimed to be sent from Jerusalem or her leaders really
reflected the ‘authoritative’ position of those leaders, and how much was based
on traditional Jewish understanding of the law outside of the Christian
movement.84 To summarize, the transition of leadership from Peter to James
reflected an increasingly conservative Jewish Christian church based in

79 Hengel, Saint Peter, 66, 74.
81 Slee, The church in Antioch, 34; Hengel, Saint Peter, 51.
83 Barnett, Paul in Syria, 36; see for example the discussion in Bauckham, “Barnabas in Galatians”,
65.
84 Barrett, Acts, 697, 699.
16

Jerusalem, which would make its influence felt upon the diaspora communities
in the decades leading to the Jewish revolt.
1.5 Dating and Background of Galatians
Beyond a few details, it is hard to conclusively date anything in Paul’s life and
ministry, and even then more can be done to order his life events than to put
firm dates on them.85 Dating Galatians presents a prime example of this problem,
although for this project it is necessary to at least attempt this, given the
extensive treatment that Paul gives to historical events in Antioch and Jerusalem.
There are two main considerations in dating the book, first to determine what
exactly is meant by ‘Galatia’. The term could refer to the Northern region, around
Ancyra, Pessinus and the surrounds, or the better-‐known Southern region
incorporating Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe.86 The Southern
region was Roman and of more cosmopolitan ethnicity, while the North was
primarily Gallic in character.87 Dunn points out that Luke refers to the northern
region as Phrygia and Galatia, and in the south he tends to name the key cities
listed above.88 On this basis he proposes that Galatians is written to churches in
the northern region, although given that the nomenclature of the region is
ambiguous, Luke’s usage of the term Galatia may not match that of Paul.
The second question concerns when Paul wrote the letter, which hinges on when
he travelled through those regions and when he had opportunity to write. Paul’s
first missionary journey, recorded in Acts 13:4 – 14:26, took him through the
South Galatian region. Later journeys, recorded in Acts 16:6 and 18:23, both
recorded in Acts after the Jerusalem Council, would take him through the North
Galatian region.89 These, then, represent the earliest opportunities for the letter
to be written, but the actual date could differ depending on which area was the

85 F.F. Bruce The epistle of Paul to the Galatians: a commentary on the Greek text. (Exeter :
Paternoster Press, 1982), 55; Betz, Galatians, 12.

86 Bruce The epistle of Paul to the Galatians, 7.
88 J.D.G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians. (London : A&C Black, 1993), 6.
89 Bruce The epistle of Paul to the Galatians, 43; R.Y.K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians. (Grand
Rapids : Eerdmans, 1988), 9.

17

intended recipient of the letter. Paul in Galatians 1:6 expresses his surprise at
how quickly they have turned aside from the message that he brought them,
which many interpreters take to mean that the letter is written soon after his
visit to Galatia.90 The question, then, is how to choose between the North
Galatian and South Galatian theories. Bruce writes that what can be known of
Paul’s missionary habits, in which he would largely stay on major roads and
close to larger cities, inclines him towards the South Galatian theory.91 The North
Galatian theory, he argues, is more speculative, based on reconciling the content
of the letter with what is known of the character of the North Galatian
communities.92 Further insight can be gained by comparing Paul’s account of his
early meetings in Jerusalem with those of Acts, which will be done in the
following section.
1.6 Galatians and Acts.

Betz has drawn attention to the difficulty of reconciling the accounts of Paul’s
visits to Jerusalem in Galatians to those of Acts.93 Of particular interest is the
second Galatian visit, described in Galatians 2:1-‐10. In Acts, Paul visits Jerusalem
first in Acts 9:26, then to bring famine relief in Acts 11:27-‐30, and then for the
Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Galatians 2:1-‐10 can then be reconciled either to
the account of Acts 11 based on it being the second recorded visit of Paul to
Jerusalem, or to Acts 15 based on the similarities of the two accounts.94 If the
former is preferred, then Galatians could easily be directed to the Southern
region some time after Paul’s return from his first missionary journey in Acts
14:26.95 If the latter, then it could be directed to the North after either the visit of
Acts 16:6 or Acts 18:23.96 This speculation, of course, places much weight on
Paul’s insistence that the Galatians apostasy happened ‘quickly’ and that Paul

93 Phillips, Paul, his letters, and Acts, 73.
94 D.R. deLacey, “Paul in Jerusalem” in New Testament Studies 20.1 (1973), 82; Phillips, Paul, his
letters, and Acts, 67, 73.

18

responded in writing soon after.97 There is no reason to exclude the possibility
that he uses the term as a rhetorical tool to emphasize his anger at their rejection
of his gospel, in fact, this seems likelier given his overall tone with the Galatians.
Paul would view any change from his gospel as inexplicable, and react in
corresponding language. Of course, this also means that once Paul heard of such
an event, he would write as soon as he was able. Additionally, if the letter was
completed before the Jerusalem Council, this suggests that Paul disputed with
Barnabas in Galatians 2:11-‐14, reconciled to travel with him to Jerusalem in Acts
15, then parted ways again afterwards. This is a much more complex solution
than equating Acts 15 to Galatians 2:1-‐10.

The textual connections between Galatians 2:1-‐10 and Acts 15 are extensive and
strong, and will be developed fully in the following chapter. By way of brief
summary for the purposes of dating, Phillips lists parallels of geography,
participants, subject matter, content and result.98 The differences between the
Lucan and Pauline accounts can be explained by their purposes in writing and
corresponding emphases. Luke is determined to show harmony between the key
figures of the early church, in Dunn’s words, at the Jerusalem Council he has
“James affirm a precedent through Peter in very Pauline terms.”99 He has a
tendency to leave out or marginalize tension between the early church leaders,
and in Dibelius’ words is, ‘more concerned with telling a story than with history’,
and as a consequence the chronology is not always reliable.100 In Acts, Paul is a
figure who acts in a way that would appease the law-‐friendly gospel of James,
such as fulfilling vows in Jerusalem in Acts 21:17-‐26.101 Paul, on the other hand,
has his own agenda in how he relates his past history with the Jerusalem
apostles.102 That said, given his claim that he is truthful in his account (Galatians
1:20), he would need to be more careful in his account so as not to give his

97 Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, 8.
99 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 465; see also Phillips, Paul, his letters, and Acts, 147.
100 M. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. (London: SCM Press, 1956), 106.
102 D.R. Catchpole, “Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree” in New Testament Studies 23.4 (1977),
438.
19

opponents further reason to attack him.103 Further, if Galatians 2:1-‐10
corresponded to an earlier visit to Jerusalem, then Paul would either be choosing
to make no mention of the events of Acts 15, or to have written the letter prior to
the council, a very tight timeframe.104 It seems likelier that the chain of events
runs that after the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15, corresponding to Galatians 2:1-‐
10), Peter left Jerusalem, and travelled through Antioch, where Paul encountered
him again and the events of Galatians 2:11-‐14 took place.105 Galatians was
written some time after this, likely enough time for news of the Antioch
confrontation to reach Galatia, and for news of the ensuing fallout to reach Paul,
at which point he writes in response.106

This analysis suggests that Galatians is written sufficiently late in Acts to satisfy
either the South or the North Galatia theory, placing the Jerusalem Council in the
vicinity of 48-‐49CE, and Paul’s second missionary journey, starting in Acts 16,
around 50-‐53CE.107 These dates require Paul’s dates of Galatians 1 and 2 to be
cumulative, such that the 14 years of Galatians 2:1 incorporates the 3 years of
Galatians 1:18, and placing Paul’s conversion soon after Jesus’ death, around 34-‐
35CE.108 Moo adds weight to this, suggesting that the theology of Galatians fits
this timeframe, based on the thematic similarities to Romans, that is, that Paul
wrote similar letters around the same time.109 While this may be true, it does
assume that Paul was not capable of writing very different occasional letters, and
the overall Pauline corpus is not sufficiently large that the chronological
contours of his theology can be traced too closely. Nevertheless, placing the
letter in the early 50s and originating from somewhere on Paul’s second
missionary journey makes sense both of the urgency of the occasion while
allowing enough time for the necessary events to have taken place. While this
theory is open either to a North or South Galatian audience, Bruce is likely

103 J.C. Hurd, “Reflections concerning Paul’s ‘Opponents’ in Galatia” in Paul and His Opponents. ed.
Porter, S.E. (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 130; Phillips, Paul, his letters, and Acts, 61.
106 C.H. Talbert, “Again: Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem” in Novum Testamentum 9 (1967), 34.
107 L.A. Jervis, Galatians. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 14-‐15; D.J. Moo, Galatians (Grand Rapids
: Baker, 2001), 9.

108 Moo, Galatians, 12.
109 Moo, Galatians, 17.
20

correct in linking Paul’s primary audience for his letter to those churches in the
South along the major trade routes.
1.7 Paul’s Opponents.
A final background aspect of Galatians is the opposition that Paul faces. Paul does
not explicitly identify his opponents, however, so their identity is unclear. Much
of Paul’s defence of his gospel appears responsive to a legalist position, that is,
his opponents are proposing that Gentile converts are required to obey more of
the Jewish law than Paul is willing to concede. Paul’s tone throughout the letter
as well as his lack of a thanksgiving section suggests that he views them as open
adversaries.110 It is widely held that the agitators in Galatia had appealed to the
superior authority of the Jerusalem apostles to establish their case, at the same
time disparaging Paul’s apostleship as subordinate, and thus less trustworthy.111
Based on this, it is reasonable to expect his opponents to be Judaizers, probably
from Jerusalem or at least Judea. Paul was prompted to defend himself on two
counts, first that he was somehow inferior to the Jerusalem apostles, and
secondly that he changed his message as the occasion demanded.112 Based on
this, his opponents are likely to be traditionalist Jews proclaiming a law-‐based
gospel, with at least the implied backing of Jerusalem. This also makes sense of
Paul’s use of the Antioch incident in his defence. Talbert, however, cites Paul’s
generally positive attitude towards the churches of Judea, and suggests instead
that the opponents are Gentiles, possibly who had previously been attached to
the Jewish community in the Galatian region, and who now want to unite the
Christian movement with traditional Judaism.113 While it is possible that such
Gentiles were present in the Galatian church, such a desire would be driven by
the rising isolationism of mainstream Judaism. It is far more likely that with
James’ rise to ascendancy, and following the incident at Antioch, agitators come

110 Hurd, “Reflections concerning Paul’s ‘Opponents’ in Galatia”, 143.
111 D.J. Verseput, “Paul’s Gentile Mission and the Jewish Christian Community: A Study of the
Narrative in Galatians 1 and 2” in New Testament Studies 39.1 (1993), 36.
112 L.W. Hurtado, “The Jerusalem Collection and the Book of Galatians” in Journal for the Study of
the New Testament 2 (1979), 50.

113 Talbert, “Again: Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem”, 27, 29.
21

to Galatia from Jerusalem in opposition to Paul, and it is this group that he
confronts.114

1.8 Paul and Peter

The interaction between Paul and Peter is a particularly important one in
examining Paul’s relationship with Jerusalem. While Peter is far from the only
authority attached to Jerusalem, he is certainly the one with whom Paul has the
most interaction. According to Acts, Paul and Peter met once after Paul’s
conversion, possibly with the collection at the end of chapter 13, and then at the
Jerusalem council in Acts 15, where Peter claims the precedence for the Gentile
mission.115 There is no extant record of Paul meeting with any of the Jerusalem
leaders anywhere but Jerusalem, or of their communicating by letter, so it is
unlikely that any other meetings happened.116 Acts presents the dynamic
between Paul and Peter as central to the narrative of the early church. As has
been said, Acts 15 stands as a transition point from Peter’s activity in the first
half of the book to that of Paul in the second.117 Although this confrontation in
Acts 15 happens in front of a number of others, the key firsthand testimony
comes from Peter and Paul, such that Lategan can suggest that the whole event is
testimony to God’s ability to work through servants like Peter and Paul.118

Paul feels it necessary in Galatians to raise the nature of his relationship with the
Jerusalem leaders, particularly Peter. Brown suggests that this is likely an
indicator either that Peter was involved in other incidents in Jerusalem, was
himself active in Galatia, or that the law-‐based gospel was at least partly being
preached in his name.119 Paul uses his three encounters with Peter to advance
his own status as an apostle, by developing his own authority progressively. 120
In Galatians 1:18 he could be understood as an inferior, at the council in 2:7-‐9 he

114 Matera, Galatians, 26.
118 Lategan, “Is Paul defending his apostleship in Galatians?”, 427.
22

presents himself as an equal, and finally in 2:11 he stands in open and public
rebuke of Peter. The thrust of the term ἱστορῆσαι in Galatians 1:18 is that Paul
came to Peter in order to gain more information, probably about Jesus’ earthly
life. While it is not a term that indicates subservience, it does suggest enquiring
of one who is better informed or has access to greater knowledge.121 Paul, at this
stage, wants to establish the sufficiency of his Christ-‐experience for his gospel
and apostleship, but is happy to ask for more information on other issues.122 It is
hardly likely that the topic of Paul’s apostleship and ministry would not have
come up, and the two weeks that he spends with Peter should be more than
enough for them to reach an agreement.123

To the author of Acts, there is nothing disparaging in Paul being instructed by the
apostles or other good Christians, and Paul has several such encounters
following his conversion.124 In fact, to insist that Galatians is purely about Paul
defending his apostleship and downplaying his contact with other authority
figures is to ignore the fact that overall he is generally positive about them.125
Lategan writes that Paul is more interested in defending his own gospel and
ministry than he is attacking or undermining the authority of the Jerusalem
apostles, that is, even in this dispute he does not view them as opponents.126 It is
likely, though, that his reluctance to discredit them is based rather on his
awareness that the Galatians hold them in high esteem and so he cannot afford to
confront them too openly. Even his rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11-‐14, as
strongly as it is worded, is respectful of Peter’s background, and in fact Paul
appeals from verse 15 to their shared knowledge and experience. Overall, even
in confrontation Paul shows respect towards Peter.

Based on Peter’s experience in the Cornelius event, there is some suggestion that
Peter would have continued to be involved in mission amongst the Gentiles,

121 Holmberg, Paul and Power, 16; J.D.G. Dunn, “The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem
according to Galatians 1 and 2” in New Testament Studies 28.4 (1982), 464-‐465
122 Dunn, “The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem”, 465; Betz, Galatians, 76.
123 Holmberg, Paul and Power, 17.
124 O. Linton, “The Third Aspect” in Studia Theologica 3.1 (1949), 84.
125 Lategan, “Is Paul defending his apostleship in Galatians?”, 421.
126 Lategan, “Is Paul defending his apostleship in Galatians?”, 423, 425.
23

particularly after his disappearance from the Acts narrative and Jerusalem after
Acts 15.127 Hengel believes that after this, Peter likely travelled through the west
of the Empire, finding evidence of his presence in Paul’s other letters such as
Romans 15:15,20 and 2 Corinthians 10:12-‐18.128 He goes on to argue that Peter
did so as part of an ongoing counter-‐missionary campaign against Paul, following
the pattern of their confrontation in Antioch. Barrett agrees that there is
certainly a pro-‐circumcision group at work in most of the major centres in which
Paul works, but he argues that there is no evidence to link this to Peter.129
Indeed, Paul’s confrontation with Peter in Galatians, as well as Peter’s own
barrier to Gentile mission, were based on food laws rather than circumcision.130
Nonetheless, after Peter’s disappearance from the narrative of Acts, his presence
is evident in many of the major centres in the west of the empire, and he
certainly continued to interact with Paul indirectly if not directly in the years
that followed Antioch.

129 C.K. Barrett, Acts : A Shorter Commentary. (London : T.&T. Clark, 2002), 711.
24

Chapter 2 – The Jerusalem Council

The Jerusalem Council is an extremely significant event in understanding both
the relationship between Paul and the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, and the
spread of the Christian movement from one that was predominantly Jewish to
one of mixed Jews and Gentiles. It is unsurprising then that it is placed squarely
in the middle of the book of Acts, and marks a transition between the Peter-‐
focused first half of the book to being dominated by Paul in the second.131 While
Fitzmyer rightly points out that calling it a ‘council’ of the church is a misnomer,
given that the early church did not recognize it as such, nor was it representative
of the existing churches of the time, the term is commonly understood to refer to
the event.132 In this chapter I will compare the two biblical accounts of the
meeting, Acts 15:1-‐35, and Galatians 2:1-‐10. As this study is primarily to evaluate
the relationships between the parties involved, I will consider the identity and
motivation of those in attendance, before turning to the content of the Council
itself and its impact on both the churches involved and the leading authorities
within them, particularly Paul, Peter and James. This will be done with
consideration of the authorial intent of the two recorders, Paul himself in
Galatians, and Luke as the author of Acts.133
2.1 Paul in Galatians 2:1-‐10 and Acts 15
Betz bluntly suggests that reconciling Paul’s account of his Jerusalem visits in
Galatians with those in Acts is a hopeless one, however by considering their
individual emphases and bias, it is possible to make progress.134 There are good
grounds to assume that the account of Acts 15 corresponds to that recorded by

131 Fitzmyer, Acts, 538-‐539.
133 For the purposes of this paper, I will refer to the author of Acts as Luke. It is beyond the scope
of this study to establish this more formally, and in any case, the concerns of the text are relevant
to our study rather than those of the author.
134 Phillips, T.E. Paul, his letters, and Acts. (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, 2009),
73.
25

Paul in Galatians 2:1-‐10. Dunn gives a summary of the key support for this as
being the following three facts:
-‐ That the Gentiles receive the Spirit without circumcision is determinative,
-‐ That circumcision is not necessary for the Gentiles to obtain ‘full
membership’ in the church, and
-‐ A qualification of some kind (Acts 15:20 vs Galatians 2:10) is added to
conclude the council.135
Further to these, there are many other collaborating points of similarity. Paul
and Barnabas attend together, travelling from Syria to Jerusalem for the council,
accompanied by others whose identity is not clear. Before the meeting even
begins, they face opposition in the form of conservatives teaching that Gentiles
must obey some or all of the law. The apostles, and Antioch delegates meet, with
a significant role played by Peter and James. Paul defends his Gentile mission,
much discussion ensues, and Paul and Barnabas are backed to continue their
work, with small restrictions. They return to Antioch and Paul continues as
though his view has prevailed, but soon he and Barnabas have a falling out and
separate.136
There are also some differences in the text, which Fitzmyer summarizes. The
reason for the Council given in Acts and in Galatians is quite different, although
in each case in line with the emphasis that the author is trying to put on
proceedings. Galatians 2 places the confrontation in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:4),
while in Acts 15:1 it begins in Antioch.137 Luke in Acts identifies the initiators as
‘some of the Pharisees’, while Paul identifies them as ‘false brothers’. Then, there
is Paul’s mention of the significance of Titus’ presence while Acts does not
mention him at all (although it does reference some unknown others). While
these differences reflect the emphases each author wish to make, in themselves

135 Dunn, J.D.G. Christianity in the Making: Beginning from Jerusalem (vol 2). (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2009), 464.

136 Adapted from Parker, P. “Once More, Acts and Galatians” in JBL 86.2 (1967), 175-‐182.
137 As will be shown, Paul is vague on the reasons for which he first travels to Jerusalem to have
this confrontation, saying it is because of ‘a revelation’.

26

they are not sufficient to suggest that they represent different events.138 The two
presentations of the Jerusalem Council share sufficient details to show that they
describe the key event, however as each author relates the account, they give a
distinctive flavour to suit their broader purposes.
2.2 Reason for the visit

In the Acts account, ‘certain individuals’ (τινες) travel from Judea to Antioch and
begin to teach the necessity of circumcision for salvation. These individuals are
able to exert some influence in Antioch, teaching ‘the brothers’ (τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς),
a role which suggests that they had a public ministry amongst much of the
community of believers there (Acts 15:1). Their actions are sufficient to generate
some debate in Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas (according to Luke) leading the
argument for non-‐circumcision. Paul and Barnabas are then sent, effectively as
delegates from the church in Antioch to the leadership in Jerusalem to ‘discuss
this question with the apostles and the elders’ (Acts 15:2). Their reception there
is mixed, while they are ‘welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders’,
some members of the Pharisaical group stand up and echo the demands of the
Judeans in Antioch from verse 1, that ‘it is necessary for them to be circumcised
and ordered to keep the law of Moses (Acts 15:5). It is not clear from the text
alone in Luke whether these Pharisees are now Christ-‐followers, or whether they
are outsiders observing the fledgling Christian movement. The latter would fit
neatly with Paul’s description of false believers who were ‘brought in’ to cause
trouble in Galatians 2:4. The demands of Acts 15 verse 1 and 5, which are fairly
typical of ‘Judaizers’ within the Christian movement, are ambiguous in some
ways as to their intention. They both demand circumcision, and some adherence
to Mosaic law, without being clear on the degree to which Gentiles are to follow
the law, or the reasons for this demand.139

138 Fitzmyer, J.A. Acts. (New York : Doubleday, 1998), 540.
139 Taylor, N. Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A study in relationships and authority in earliest
Christianity. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 101.

27

Paul’s account of events differs on several significant points. While Acts begins
the account by describing the confrontation between Paul, Barnabas and the
‘individuals’ from Judea, Paul suggests that his visit to Jerusalem came
independently ‘in response to a revelation’, upon which he privately sought out
the leaders of the Jerusalem church (Galatians 2:2). He will eventually describe
the legalistic opposition in verse 4, but not until he has presented his action as a
response to divine prompting, and laid out his own case positively. What is most
telling in this account is Paul’s statement that ‘I wanted to be sure that I was not
running and had not been running my race in vain’ (Galatians 2:2b). For
whatever reason, Paul is evidently concerned for the implications that this
encounter may have for his own ministry. The background to this is undoubtedly
the effort launched by Paul and Barnabas to convert Gentiles in Acts 13 and 14,
evidently with some success, which eventually raised questions concerning the
process by which Gentiles were to be received into the community, and
ultimately led to the Jerusalem Council.140 Paul’s concern in Galatians 2:2b seems
to arise from a belief that conservative Jewish Christians (or orthodox Jews
seeking to influence the Christian church) present a genuine threat either to the
style of ministry and fellowship he has established amongst the Gentile populace,
or to Paul’s own authority as a teacher, or even both.141 Particularly, the question
is raised as to how the ‘circumcision-‐free’ gospel preached in and from Antioch is
being received by the leaders in Jerusalem.142 The key to interpretation here is to
match Paul’s concern in Galatians 2:2 with the tone of the rest of his letter. Given
his overall emphasis of independence from Jerusalem in the opening chapters of
Galatians, it seems unlikely that Paul would suggest that he was unsure of his
own position in travelling to Jerusalem, although the Acts account very much
suggests that he and Barnabas come to Jerusalem as petitioners for an
authoritative ruling. Taylor suggests that what is more likely is rather than Paul
going to Jerusalem with no intention to seek approval for his ministry, or even to
discuss doctrine with those authorities, his purpose was to offer a defense for the

142 Luedemann, G. Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. (tr. E. Boring) (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1989), 44.

28

Antiochene practises which are being challenged for the first time.143 While this
reflects the level of independence that Paul wishes to display at the time of
writing the Galatians account, it possibly describes a Pauline disregard for
Jerusalem authority too strongly for the stage of his life and ministry at which
the Council occurred. If nothing else, and no matter how belatedly it may be, Paul
recognizes that the partnership or approval of the Jerusalem authorities is
necessary for his gospel preaching to continue to be effective.144 Dunn suggests
that while Paul would prefer not to admit it, his tone in verse 2 and 6 of Galatians
2 suggests an awareness that the success or failure of his mission is dependent
on the outcome of this delegation to Jerusalem.145 As such, despite his own
conviction of the Gentile mission, Paul seeks independent validation from the
Jerusalem community for that mission to continue, not from an uncertainty of his
own gospel, but to protect against the dangerous potential of having the
Jerusalem leaders oppose him.146
Thus, there are conflicting, but not irreconcilable reasons given for the council. In
Acts, Luke presents an Antiochene dispute caused by Judean visitors seeking to
impose greater law observance on believers. The Antiochene leaders duly send
delegates to the recognized authority, Jerusalem, for clarification. Paul presents
‘a relationship of equals, come together to secure a common understanding of
circumcision-‐free gospel’,147 that is, Paul comes to Jerusalem to confirm that the
Jerusalem apostles will not oppose the mission that he intends to carry out.
Allowing for his over-‐statement of his autonomy given the occasion of Galatians,
and the harmonizing tendency of Luke, a middle view is that the Jerusalem
meeting came in response to a crisis over the involvement of Gentiles in the
movement, particularly outside Judea, and provided a prime opportunity to
establish how the Jerusalem leaders would respond to Paul’s stance on the issue.

145 Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-‐18)” in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 5
(1983), 6.
146 Verseput, D.J. “Paul’s Gentile Mission and the Jewish Christian Community: A Study of the
Narrative in Galatians 1 and 2” in New Testament Studies 39.1 (1993), 44.
147 Koptak, P.E. “Rhetorical Identification in Paul’s Autobiographical Narrative: Galatians 1:13-‐
2:14” in The Galatians Debate. ed. Nanos, M.D. (Peabody : Hendrickson, 2002), 163.
29

2.3 Participants and their attitudes
2.3.1 Paul and Barnabas
According to both accounts, Acts and Galatians, Paul and Barnabas travel
together to Jerusalem to meet with the leaders there. In Acts, the commissioning
and sending was a formal one, as they are appointed and sent by the church in
that city (Acts 15:2-‐3), and so can be said to officially represent the Antiochene
church while in Jerusalem. Paul is less clear in Galatians, stating non-‐specifically
that he personally had been based in Syria and Cilicia before travelling to
Jerusalem in response to divine prompting (Galatians 2:2a). That Paul wishes to
present himself as the leader of the delegation can be seen in his use of first
person pronouns in the majority of Galatians 2:1-‐10.148 The Lucan account in
Acts, however, suggests that Barnabas was the senior figure at this stage. It was
Barnabas who had first been sent from Jerusalem to Antioch to strengthen the
church (Acts 11:22), and who later brought Paul into that community (Acts
11:25-‐26). Barnabas is first named amongst the ‘prophets and teachers’ of
Antioch in Acts 13:1, and at the commissioning by the Holy Spirit of he and Saul
in Acts 13:2. Throughout the account of Acts 15, the ordering of the pair as they
are named changes between ‘Paul and Barnabas’ and ‘Barnabas and Paul’, which
Fitzmyer suggests is the result of Lucan material (giving priority to Paul in
anticipation of the second half of the book) being used to supplement another
source which gives precedence to Barnabas.149
While Paul emphasizes his own role in the Jerusalem meetings, he gives some
hints that Barnabas may at the time still have been considered the leader of the
Jerusalem delegation. In Galatians 2:1 he very carefully states that he travelled
μετὰ Βαρναβᾶ and adds συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ Τίτον, separating the two. In the

148 Taylor, N. “Apostolic Identity and the conflicts in Corinth and Galatia” in Paul and His
Opponents. ed. Porter, S.E. (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 113.

30

way that Paul goes on to describe his own eminence at the council, it could easily
be imagined that if he could have, he would have put Barnabas and Titus
together as secondary companions, but he does not.150 This would make sense,
for example, if the Galatian church were aware of the status of Barnabas already.
He brings Titus, but merely travels with Barnabas. Further, Taylor argues that if
Paul had unquestioned authority in the group, he would be inclined to explicitly
say as much to reinforce it.151 It could be argued, though, that he has already
implicitly done so in the way that he presents the material. Regardless, they are
both part of the delegation, and bring others with them, Titus in Galatians and an
unspecified group of more than one (τινας ἄλλους) in Acts, to which presumably
Titus could have belonged. I will return to this group in section 2.3.4.
Paul expresses two concerns in Galatians that are particularly relevant here.
First, his intention is not merely to defend the legitimacy of his personal
authority for the gospel he preaches, but to defend a broader platform for a
mission that does not require Gentile converts to become Jewish Christian
proselytes. This is of particular relevance in a time where many if not most
believers would still have thought themselves to belong to a ‘believing sect’ of
Judaism.152 It is easy to imagine a situation where the expectation was that
converts from Gentile backgrounds would be expected to conform to Jewish
customs and law, not only within Palestine itself, but equally conceivably within
diaspora communities. Secondly, Paul is attempting to balance a desire to
demonstrate his unity with, but independence from the Jerusalem authorities.153
He desires to demonstrate that his authority is not derived from theirs, that is, he
is sent ‘neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through
Jesus Christ and God the Father’ (Galatians 1:1), but at the same time he wishes
to show that when he had occasion to meet with them, they were able to reach
agreement on a consistent and correct approach to Gentile mission, that is, there
is no division between them in their understanding of the gospel. If Jerusalem

150 Phillips, Paul, his letters, and Acts, 124-‐125.
152 Verseput, “Paul’s Gentile Mission”, 39.
31

held influence over communities outside Judea, then this partnership with
Jerusalem would become necessary for Paul, whether he desired it or not. This
certainly matches his rhetoric through the opening chapters of Galatians.
Regardless of Paul’s attempt to downplay any dependence on Jerusalem,
however, it is clear that the conflict that had arisen was not something that either
Paul or the Antioch church felt that they could resolve without conference with
Jerusalem.154 A functional dependence is there, in which Paul finds it necessary
for himself to work.
2.3.2 Jerusalem leaders

In examining the involvement of the leaders of the Jerusalem church, both
accounts must be considered to build a picture of who is involved and how. Luke
in Acts recounts that the intention of Paul and Barnabas is to meet with the
‘apostles and elders’ in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2, 4, 6). Prominent roles are then
taken by Peter (Acts 15:7-‐11) and James (Acts 15:13-‐21). This same ‘apostles
and elders’ group is responsible for the drafting and distribution of the so-‐called
‘Jerusalem Decree’ described in Acts 15:22-‐29. Paul is less clear of the identities
of those involved, with one exception in Galatians 2:9 where he names ‘James
and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars’ in the Jerusalem church.
These should then be considered to form at least part of the ‘apostles and elders’
group in Acts, probably the core, even though John is not explicitly mentioned by
name in the Acts account.155 The ordering of the names may indicate that at this
stage James has taken precedence in the church, which I will explore more fully
in chapter 3.156 In comparing the accounts, Acts uses far more positive language
in referring to the Jerusalem leaders, referring to their titles as ‘apostles and
elders’, while Paul uses more detached language, referring instead to the esteem
in which they were held by others.157 When Paul refers to the Jerusalem leaders
in his account, he does so in very subversive terms, using phrases such as ‘those

154 Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch”, 7.
156 Luedemann, Opposition to Paul, 45-‐46.
32

who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders’ (Galatians 2:6), and ‘a private
meeting with the acknowledged leaders’ (Galatians 2:2, emphasis mine) to
downplay any direct authority they may have appeared to have.158 Dunn reads in
this that by the time of writing Paul has moved past any reverence that he had
for the Jerusalem leaders, which belonged to an earlier part of his Christian
life.159 This raises the question of how and when that attitude developed in the
course of his personal history; it is entirely possible that Paul adopts this tone
only retrospectively in response to later incidents such as that described in
Galatians 2:11-‐14. Having placed himself apart from any human authority in the
opening chapter of Galatians, Paul can now describe his independence in the
actual debate of the council.160
Paul in Galatians 2 cannot be seen to be in any way subservient to the ‘human
authority’ of Peter and James, as this would undermine his primary purpose of
winning the Galatians to his position.161 His dismissive comments regarding their
authority, then, should be interpreted against this broader purpose. With this in
mind, his frequent mention of the Jerusalem authorities with only one reference
to James, Peter and John by name suggests that the Galatians are already well
aware not only of the names but also the reputation of these figures, or Paul
would not have felt the need to use such deflective language.162 Verseput,
however, suggests that Paul’s ‘name dropping’ in Galatians 2:9 is intended to be
respectful to those figures, by using their support as a foil against the false
brethren of 2:4.163 This suggestion needs to be treated carefully, as even as he
claims their support he at the same time downplays any status and authority that
they have. Verseput qualifies his theory by suggesting that Paul’s aim is not to
discredit them in the eyes of their own community, but simply to suggest that
their opinion does not ‘outweigh’ Paul’s own calling, that is, to suggest that they

158 Porter, S. The Paul of Acts. (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1999), 62.
160 Hester, J.D. “Epideictic Rhetoric and Persona in Galatians 1 ad 2” in Paul’s Autobiographical
Narrative: Galatians 1:13-‐2:14” in The Galatians Debate. ed. Nanos, M.D. (Peabody : Hendrickson,
2002), 193.
161 Koptak, “Rhetorical Identification”, 165.
162 Brown, R.E. Peter in the New Testament; a collaborative assessment by Protestant scholars.
(Minneapolis, Augsburg Pub. House, 1973), 27.

33

have their own sphere of influence that does not extend over Paul’s own
ministry.164 Verseput’s desire here appears to be reconciling Paul to Jerusalem as
much as is possible in the book of Galatians, an approach that falters with the
Incident in Antioch. In order to reconcile Paul’s negative comments of verse 6
with his apparent solidarity with Jerusalem in verses 7 to 9, Porter suggests that
verse 6 completes a section regarding the ψευδαδέλφους whom Paul wishes to
oppose and whom Porter suggests carry some support in Jerusalem. He argues
that this group should be held in contrast with the apostles, with whom Paul
wishes to claim solidarity.165 Dunn interprets Paul’s comments far less
favourably. He describes this section of Galatians as ‘one of the most polemic
documents in the Bible’, that Paul’s repeated use of οἱ δοκοῦντες is intended to
dismiss the apostles ‘with a shrug’, as he says in verse 6, ‘what they actually were
makes no difference to me’.166 This appears too strong, given that Paul’s primary
goal in writing is not to attack the Jerusalem leaders, but to defend his own
interpretation of the gospel, and his consequent ministry. Paul seeks to highlight
his autonomy from the apostles alongside his respect for them.
There are signs to suggest that the Jerusalem leaders and Peter in particular
receive Paul quite favourably, though not necessarily as an equal.167 This is
confirmed both in the Acts account (particularly in Acts 15:4, and also in Act 9:27
if that verse is accurate), and to some degree in the account of Galatians 1:18 and
2:7-‐9. There is enough evidence to suggest that at least in the early stages of
Paul’s ministry that he was on good terms with the Jerusalem apostles, though
this may have changed later. Paul’s account also reveals the growing influence of
James, the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem. In Galatians 1:19 he warrants a passing
mention in Paul’s first visit, by Galatians 2:9 he has attained ‘pillar’ status, while
by the time of the Antioch incident, he is able to exert influence over both the
Galatian churches and Peter even while still himself in Jerusalem.168 Brown

165 Porter, The Paul of Acts, 85,88.
166 Dunn, J.D.G. “Echoes of Intra-‐Jewish Polemic in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians” in JBL 112.3
(1993), 459.
34

suggests that the transition of precedence from Peter to James had already
happened by the time of Galatians 2:9. While this is consistent with, though not
necessary to make sense of, the evidence in Acts 15, it is certainly true by the
time of Acts 21:18.169 Brown suggests that the transition has already happened
by the time of the Jerusalem council, based on Peter’s disappearance from the
Acts narrative after this point.170 If it had not already happened, this event
certainly marks a part of the transition, and Paul’s relationship with James will
become more important.
A further factor affecting the Jerusalem leaders at this stage is the growing
nationalism in Jerusalem and more broadly in Palestine. As has been said in
earlier sections, tension had been rising between Palestinian Jews and the
Gentile world represented by Rome first under the decrees of Caligula, then
following the death of Agrippa I and the return of Judea to a series of weak
Roman procurators.171 There had already been some pressure reported in the
Acts account, first with the stoning of Stephen, and then of Peter as he is
criticised by the circumcision faction in Acts 11:2-‐3 following his encounter with
Cornelius.172 Hengel suggests that should Peter have displayed sympathy
towards the Hellenists and to Paul, the growing nationalism in Jerusalem could
explain the transition of leadership from Peter to James, as Peter was forced
from prominence.173
Jerusalem, then, is represented at the council by at least James and Peter, each of
whom take a leadership role in the council; probably John, and possibly others
who can be numbered amongst the group of ‘apostles and elders’. Paul is very
keen to distance himself from the authority of their leadership, while still
emphasizing solidarity with the conclusions drawn at the meeting inasmuch as
they are favourable to him. There is clearly, however, a political climate of

173 Hengel, M. Saint Peter – the Underestimated Apostle. (Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 2010), 54.
35

change in Jerusalem which would influence on the council as it met, firstly in the
transition of leadership from Peter to James, and secondly the growing
nationalist tension in Jerusalem which would only continue to grow stronger
right up to the Jewish revolt.
2.3.3 The opponents

Another area where the two accounts agree generally, but differ in detail, is
regarding opposition to Paul’s mission leading to the council meeting. Both
accounts suggest that the Council is the result of agitation by legalists, but differ
in their treatment of those individuals. Acts 15 begins with ‘certain individuals’
coming from Judea to Antioch and teaching circumcision and obedience to the
law. Circumcision was a key covenant marker and potential source of tension in
the early period of the Christian movement, reinforced by the Maccabean
crisis.174
The term ‘τινες’ here is very vague, Fitzmyer suggesting that the imprecision
reveals a Lucan introduction to the account, where Luke had no more specific
information to give regarding the identity of this group. For him this stands in
contrast to the non-‐Lucan account of members of the Pharisees, who stand and
proclaim a similar if not identical message in Jerusalem in Acts 15:5.175 These
Pharisees may be the same individuals as those mentioned in verse 1, but Luke
does not specify, either because he deems the detail unimportant, because their
identity is different, or as Fitzmyer suggests and as seems likely, because he just
doesn’t know. This latter group speaks not during the council itself, which begins
in verse 6, but rather on the arrival of Paul, Barnabus and their party in
Jerusalem. This suggests that any authority that the Pharisaical group had within
the church was at a more popular, congregational level of influence rather than
within authorized church governance.176 Nevertheless, their boldness in

174 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 439. See for example Jubilees 15:25-‐34
36

speaking, and that the Council was necessary at all, suggests that they had some
influence within the Jesus-‐following community.
Paul, unsurprisingly, is far more polemical in his description. Interestingly, his
account differs in that there is no conflict in Antioch itself, rather, Paul travels of
his own initiative in response to a revelation. Paul is intentionally vague, the
specifics of this revelation, including origins, are not given, nor are his reasons
for not sharing them. This suggests that it suits Paul’s narrative to have both the
conflict and resolution take place in Jerusalem, it is only after they arrive and
have met with the authorities in Jerusalem that the opposition, identified as
ψευδαδέλφους, appear. Porter suggests that the group Paul refers to here hold
little influence with the Jerusalem leaders, as they are first ‘secretly brought in’,
implying if nothing else that they are not ‘rightfully’ present for the debate, and
then of course lose the debate in the council itself. He understands παρεισάκτους
not in the sense of ‘sneaking’ in secretly, but rather to mean that they do not
belong there as they are not believers, which I will examine further below.177
Porter also suggests that they are the group who attempted but failed to compel
Titus to be circumcized in Galatians 2:3.178 Further, that they were so easily
overcome without necessitating either a break between the church of Antioch
and that of Jerusalem, or a break between Gentile Christians as represented by
Antioch and the Jewish community in Jerusalem, confirms that they held little
direct authority in Jerusalem.179
The question, then, is of their identity. It is entirely possible that they are the
same as the Pharisees identified in Acts 15:5, they appear at the same stage of
the account, in Jerusalem around the time of the council, and represent a
conservative group.180 This would indeed fit with the observations from Porter
above, as the Pharisees within Judaism at this stage of history (pre-‐revolt) were

177 Porter, The Paul of Acts, 74-‐78.
178 Porter, The Paul of Acts, 63.
180 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 442. Paul’s use of ‘freedom’ and ‘slavery’ in Galatians 2:4 is
likely in reference to the law.

37

limited to pressure and influence to enforce their views, as compared to the
priestly class who had more direct authority to compel other Jews.181 Fitzmyer
believes that both Acts references as well as Galatians 2:4 refer to the same
group.182 They are evidently then connected in some way to, or are at the very
least present amongst, the Christian community, though this could be no more
than a desire to ensure that a dangerous Jewish sect (Christianity) is kept in line
given the political climate of the time.
Porter holds to this latter view, arguing that they represent conservative Jewish
interests observing Christianity, so that Paul, who still considers himself a
faithful Jew as a follower of Jesus, can call them αδέλφους even if it is
ψευδαδέλφους. He would consider them to be ψευδο-‐ in the sense that they bear
false witness to Christ and to the gospel as Paul understands it.183 It is quite
conceivable to expect that in the climate of Jerusalem at the end of the first half
of the first century CE there would have been some such supervision of any
active strand of Judaism by existing Jewish authorities of some kind, not least
one that could be considered radical in its beliefs and doctrine.184 Nanos
similarly identifies this group in Galatians 2:4 as a non-‐Jesus following group,
suggesting that their objections to Paul’s law-‐free gospel be understood to be
one between branches of Judaism rather than Christian.185
In summary, it is difficult to determine the identity of the opponents here, and
whether they represent one group, or multiple incidents of opposition around
the time of the Jerusalem Council. They are certainly not only aware of but
observing the activity of the Christian group in Jerusalem, and if Acts is to
believed, of the Antioch church also. They represent a conservative mindset,
concerned with preserving Jewish identity and practise, particularly in the face
of a presumably increasing number of Gentile converts. They also may be linked

38

to the Pharisaical group, whether or not they now considered themselves to be
‘believers’. Given that Pharisees (Acts 15:5) and priests (Acts 6:7) were members
of the early Christian movement, in the face of the activity amongst Gentiles in
the first half of Acts it’s reasonable to ask why the issue has not arisen before
this. It’s certainly possible that by this stage Gentiles are starting to outnumber
Jews within the Christian church, causing conservative Jews to express concern
that the movement remain characteristically Jewish.186 As will be shown in
chapter 3, this is consistent with the practice of the early church in which Jewish
converts, as much as that term can fairly be used, often continued to live
consistently with much of the law. The opponents of Paul, then, represent in this
encounter the concerns of those who would answer the question of how Gentiles
should be brought into the faith by insisting that they should become, to some
degree, law-‐abiding proselyte Jews.
2.3.4 Titus

As has been stated already, the Galatians account suggests that Titus was part of
the delegation sent from Antioch to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:3). The most likely
explanation for his explicit mention in Galatians and his absence in Acts is that
for the Galatian readers Titus provides a test case or reference point for their
own situation. Whatever happens to Titus, as a Gentile convert interacting with
the Jewish world, the Galatians should expect the same.187 Nevertheless, his
presence gives some insight into the situation surrounding the Jerusalem council
and Paul’s intentions in bringing him along. Porter suggests that, by bringing
Titus, Paul did not intend to be hostile or confrontational, but that as a Gentile
companion his experience later proved useful for Paul’s correspondence with the
Galatians.188 At the time, he would have just been another member of the
delegation. Nevertheless, Paul chose to bring him, knowing that his presence as
an uncircumcised Gentile convert would be particularly relevant to the matter at
hand. I have already considered the possibility that it was Paul’s opponents who

187 Porter, The Paul of Acts, 95; Verseput, “Paul’s Gentile Mission”, 46.
39

attempted to compel Titus’ circumcision; Dunn suggests that the Jerusalem
apostles could easily have made the suggestion as a way of attempting to
appease the increasingly conservative Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, but that
they chose not to attempt to force the issue, which Paul correspondingly
interprets as a victory.189 This would suggest that the circumcision of converts
outside of Palestine in cities like Antioch presents less of a pressing issue, but in
the heartland of Judaism issues of the law become quite pointed, as is suggested
in Paul’s later visit in Acts 21:28. Dunn does go on say that given the high
importance that circumcision held within first century Jewish communities as a
marker of identity and faithfulness, it would be the expectation for proselytes
rather than an exception, and hence the pressure on Titus is not out of place.190
The issue has already arisen in Peter’s encounter with Cornelius in Acts 10:44-‐
48, to which Peter again refers in Acts 15:8-‐11. In that narrative, then, reference
to the case of Titus is unnecessary. As a final point, for Paul to even mention that
Titus could potentially have been so compelled is something of an admission
from Paul, as it suggests that he is aware his opponents held some influence for it
to have been a possibility.191
2.3.5 Conclusions

To summarize, then, there are several key groups involved in the events leading
up to the Jerusalem Council, and then in the Council itself. In comparing the
accounts of Acts and Galatians, the question is raised as to which of Paul and
Barnabas is the leader of the Antiochene delegation, but even more relevant for
our purposes is what can be grasped of the relationship between Antioch and
Jerusalem, and how that is expressed in the delegation and council. This is
complicated in the Galatians account by Paul’s own motives in his
correspondence with the Galatian churches. If his purpose is to be anything but
defensive, it is surprising that he gives such an extensive account of his
relationship to the Jerusalem apostles. His presentation is necessarily multi-‐

40

faceted, he wishes to present his gospel as being true before it was affirmed by
the apostles, to be true with apostolic affirmation, and to be upheld as true in
spite of the conflict that eventually takes place.192
The Jerusalem leaders formed a group that contains at least James, Peter and
John, and potentially others, though only James and Peter are featured in the
council itself. Our first concern here is similar to that of the first group, to
determine which of these two figures takes precedence, as leadership of the
Jerusalem church transitions from Peter to James. What is of particular interest
are the reasons for this shift in power, and whether they reflect the changing
relations not only between Paul and Jerusalem, but the background of
Palestinian Judaism against which the relationship falls. Paul’s own account is
coloured by his need to relate his story to the Galatian church, who by all
appearances hold the Jerusalem church and its leaders in considerable regard.
Hence Paul is caught between respectful regard for them and insistence on his
own autonomy.193
The third significant party are the ‘agitators’ representing the conservative
position. It is hard to be sure of very much about their identity. From Acts, it is
evident at least some of those involved belonged to the sect of the Pharisees, and
from both accounts they originated within Jerusalem, which is not unexpected
given their conservative Jewish stance. It is hard to be sure whether all the
references to opposition refer to the same group, and even to talk in terms of
‘groups’ may suggest a factional organization that is not yet present in either
Jerusalem at large or the Christian movement. Rather, they represent a
consistent position of obedience to the law. They do not appear to have a
leadership role in the Christian movement; Paul puts them in a secondary role,
and Luke has them engage only before the council, with their position firmly
rejected. Their influence, though, does not disappear.

192 Vos, “Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians 1-‐2”, 180.
41

Finally, Titus, who does not so much represent another ‘party’, but rather his
presence and the way Paul describes it raises questions about Paul’s motivations
in bringing him, his reason for mentioning him in the Galatians correspondence,
and what significance can be draw from the little that Paul says.
2.4 The outcome of the meetings in Acts 15.
The material covering the Council breaks into two sections, first the Council
itself, as recorded in Acts 15:6-‐21 and Galatians 2:1-‐10, and then the decree of
James, described in Acts 15:22-‐35. There is good reason to believe that the two
sections represent different events, as will be shown in section 2.4.1. The
discussion of the council also breaks into three subsections, discussing the
nature of the conference, its content, and finally the aftermath for the churches
and individuals involved.
2.4.1 The council proper (Acts 15:6-‐21, Galatians 2:1-‐10)

Nature
Simply by coming to Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas make a statement about the
primacy of the Jerusalem authorities and the apostles in relation to the Antioch
community. While there is no evidence of the council being planned, or that Paul
and Barnabas were either summoned or even expected, the location of the
council and the way the participants are drawn there shows that Jerusalem
remains in a real sense the centre of authority for the spreading community of
Jesus-‐followers.194 When the conflict arose in Antioch, in order to gain an
authoritative resolution, Paul and Barnabas were obliged to travel to Jerusalem.
In Galatians, where Paul is at the greatest pains to stress that he has no need to
turn to Jerusalem for support, he makes the enigmatic statement in Galatians 2:2
that he travels there to ‘make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain.’

42

A possible but unlikely interpretation of this phrase taken in isolation would be
that Paul is concerned to have his own ministry ratified by the apostles lest he
find that he was in the wrong. In the wider context of the letter, however, this
cannot be his intention. In Galatians 1 he has emphasized both his lack of contact
with the Jerusalem leaders, and his sense of divine commissioning in order to
demonstrate that neither his authority nor his gospel are derivative from theirs.
In Galatians, he suggests that after his conversion he went immediately to Gentile
territories without consulting the Jerusalem apostles or the churches in Judea.
He is therefore at pains to stress the independence of the Gentile mission, which
differs from the Acts account in Acts 9:26-‐27.195 In regard to his statement in
Galatians 2:2, what is more likely is that he is concerned that if the Jerusalem
apostles do not support his circumcision-‐free gospel, or worse, opposed it, then
his credibility and mission would be severely undermined.196 Given the debate
that had already begun in Antioch, he would have legitimate fears that those who
pursued a Judaizing agenda amongst converts would be even more of a threat
with the backing of Jerusalem.197
If this is the case, then the tone of the meeting changes somewhat. While the
Jerusalem apostles certainly take precedence in the early church, if Paul comes
even in his own mind not as a petitioner seeking adjudication, but as an
independent party seeking confirmation of partnership, then the nature of
authority and the resulting relationship at stake between the parties is far more
open. Paul’s own account through Galatians 1 and 2 reflects his growing
confidence and independence in relation to the Jerusalem apostles.198
Also significant to this debate is what Paul means by the verb ἀνεθέμην in
Galatians 2:2. Again there is debate as to whether Paul is submitting his gospel
content to them for approval as a greater authority, or whether he ‘lays it out’ in
the sense of presenting it to them to confirm that the two parties are in

43

agreement.199 The key difference between the two is whether Paul had any
intention of changing should the apostles have disagreed with him; if the latter is
true, then Paul does not intend to change his content, he simply wishes to
determine whether they can be partners in the gospel, in the sense of the
κοινωνία he will refer to in Galatians 2:9. In his own account in Galatians, Paul
has made it clear that he would not change his message regardless of the
outcome of the council, and after the rhetoric of chapter 1 it would be impossible
for him to do so and save face. Acts offers no help on this matter, as Luke gives no
suggestion of even the possibility for tension between his key players in what he
presents as a harmonious meeting of church officials.200
Paul may not have intended to change his position as a result of the council, but
he certainly had more at risk. The evidence seen thus far suggests that the
apostles in Jerusalem at this stage had far greater entrenched authority than did
the community at Antioch, despite pressures on them from conservative Jews in
Jerusalem and from the growing number of Gentiles in the believing community.
Regardless of his intentions or convictions, Paul travels to them and lays his
gospel before them, and not the other way around.201 There is far more at stake
in the council for Paul than for the Jerusalem apostles, and in the next chapter
this clash of authority played out even more clearly in the following incident in
Antioch, from Galatians 2:11-‐14.
Debate
Acts gives more detail of the course of the debate than does Paul, who divides his
time between the background to the council in Galatians 2:1-‐5, and then the
aftermath in verses 6-‐10. Acts by contrast suggests that there was ‘much debate’
over the question of Gentile inclusion in the church, before recording speeches
by both Peter and James, punctuated by Paul and Barnabas sharing generically of
their own experiences. The evidence given in the Acts account is based heavily

199 Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem, 107; Koptak, “Rhetorical Identification”, 163.
200 In fact, this harmonizing on the part of Luke lends further weight to the theory that the
Pharisees in Acts 15:5 are at least in Luke’s eyes outsiders attempting to interfere.
44

on the experiences of the characters involved. Peter’s speech is based upon his
encounter with Cornelius and his household, then Barnabas and Paul recount
their own experience of ‘signs and wonders’ before James is left to interpret the
events. Luke’s version of events is typical to Acts, as the council serves as an
opportunity for Christian leaders to recognize and confirm together the work
that God had already done to facilitate the spread of the Christian movement.
Paul and Barnabas are not passive in the Acts account, however they slip into the
background somewhat. They have opportunity to speak and share something of
their experiences, however the decisive roles fall to Peter and James, the only
figures whose words are recorded.202 James and Peter both speak with and
command authority, Paul’s contribution is more subdued and indirect.203 In
some manuscripts (eg MSS D*, 257, 264) Peter’s speech is elaborated even
further, inserting the qualifier ‘Peter arose in the Spirit and said…’ to lend further
weight to his words.204 While this likely represents a later addition to the text,
the character of the insertion sits easily with the tone of the passage, and reflects
the respect with which Peter is held in the Lucan account and the early church. It
is fairly clear that while Luke wishes to show unity and consensus at the council,
Peter and James are the authorities who give it legitimacy. Further evidence of
this is that while it is Paul and Barnabas’ work in Antioch that precipitates the
council, it is Peter who claims precedence of the Gentile mission (Acts 15:7), as
though it is Peter’s experience that lends validity to Paul’s.205 Ultimately, though,
Luke attributes to James the credit for the success of the council. It is James who
speaks last, and confirms the legitimacy of what has been said. He appeals to the
Old Testament, quoting Amos 9 as interpretation of what has happened. Phillips
suggests that this is to give him credibility as the ‘church’s authoritative
interpreter of scriptural and legal traditions’.206 Luke presents James as
fundamentally agreeing with Peter, but winning his way by having some
conditions added to Peter’s statement, which had been less restrictive on the

204 Emphasis mine. Fitzmyer, Acts, 546, 548.
206 Phillips, Paul, his letters, and Acts, 143-‐146.
45

Gentiles.207 It’s possible that the early stages of James’ rise to power are on view
here, while later in Acts he holds authority even more openly. Finally, James
takes responsibility for the announcement of the councils findings to the Gentile
communities in Acts 15:19-‐21.
Based on the coverage given to each of the key players, and the order in which
they speak, Luke emphasizes the roles and authority of Peter and James in his
account, while Paul by contrast in his own account emphasizes his own
contribution and independence at the council.208 Luke presents James as the one
who speaks and persuades the council, while Paul in Galatians 2:5 suggests that
the day was won by his determination not to ‘submit even for a moment’ to the
false brothers.209 While Paul is by no means overawed by his encounter with the
Jerusalem apostles, he goes further in Galatians to present himself as their equal.
The labour of the mission is divided between them (Galatians 2:7), James, Cephas
and John give him and Barnabas the ‘right hand of fellowship’ (Galatians 2:9),
and the only requirement laid upon them (Galatians 2:10) describes something
that Paul himself claims he intended to do. Paul’s account serves to demonstrate
the Jerusalem apostles’ confirmation both of his gospel and of the legitimacy of
his method in defining what constitutes a ‘true’ and ‘false’ gospel.210
Decision of the council and aftermath.
At this stage, Paul says more than Luke about the aftermath of the council. He
makes four statements about the outcomes, first that the apostles added nothing
to his message, second, that they confirmed his ministry, and divided the mission
between them, so that Paul’s was to the Gentiles and Peter’s to the Jews
(Galatians 2:7), third, that the ‘pillars’ in Jerusalem extended the ‘right hand of
fellowship’ to acknowledge this division of mission (Galatians 2:9), and fourth,
that they would provide for those in need in the community in some way
(Galatians 2:10). These points, however, are subject to some discussion.

208 Brown, Peter in the New Testament, 49; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 449.
210 Vos, “Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians 1-‐2.”, 179.
46

The division of ministry that Paul suggests in Galatians 2:7-‐9 is of particular
difficulty. Brown draws attention first to the contrast between Paul’s explanation
and the tone of the account in Acts 15:7, where Peter claims precedence in the
Gentile mission.211 In the context of Galatians, Paul is in effect attempting to
claim a level of authority over both Antioch and Galatia as predominantly Gentile
churches on the basis of the decree of the Jerusalem council, and their Gentile
ethnicity. The Acts account does not easily support this claim. If Paul’s account is
accurate, it is strange that Luke should not mention such a harmonious
conclusion, unless he was unaware of it. Hengel points out that outside of
Jerusalem, such a division of labour would be largely unworkable anyway, as the
synagogues would have contained a large number of God-‐fearing Gentiles closely
mingled with the Jewish community.212 Hengel’s interpretation depends heavily
on the Acts narrative, which places Paul beginning his gospel proclamation in
most cities in the synagogue before moving to the general marketplace and other
public gathering areas. Paul himself is largely silent on his techniques, although 1
Corinthians 9:19-‐21 suggests that he targeted both Jews and Gentiles
deliberately. Hengel goes on to suggest that it is reasonable to suppose that after
his encounter with Cornelius, Peter was engaged in missionary activity in the
Gentile world right up until his martyrdom around 62CE.213 He proposes that as
James took ascendency in Jerusalem, Peter became increasingly involved in
mission further west, in similar territory to Paul, mission that would likely
include Gentiles.214 This would unsurprisingly lead to tension between Paul and
Peter, which is how Hengel explains the confrontation in Antioch.215 He suggests
that Luke drops Peter from his narrative for just that reason, as conflict between
the two figures does not fit with Luke’s harmonious account, and so Luke
chooses to focus on Paul as the instrument of mission.216 Hengel extrapolates
much of this hypothesis from the recorded actions of Peter, and presuming that
he would continue to act in a consistent fashion in the twenty or so years after he
drops off the scene in Acts until his death.

47

Paul’s use of the phrase δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν … κοινωνίας in verse 9 takes on some
significance as an expression of unity given the debate that it could have
followed.217 It is not completely clear what the nature of the κοινωνία is intended
to be, however in the context of Paul’s argument for the independence of his
Gentile ministry in Galatians it seems to be a theological understanding and
agreement that the Jerusalem apostles will continue their work in Jerusalem, and
Paul and Barnabas will go about theirs in Antioch.218 This fits the nature of the
council as presented in Galatians, and Paul’s own concerns expressed in
Galatians 2:2. It does, however, raise confusion in Paul’s account from verse 11,
where Peter is found to be present in Antioch, and both Peter and James are seen
to have influence over the Jewish believers there. This could be an expression of
the division of labour Paul has suggested in verse 7-‐9, which will be explored in
the next chapter. If Paul’s understanding of κοινωνία was that each would
continue to work in their own ‘field’, then this would explain his hostile reaction
to what he would see as Peter and James’ interference in Antioch. Indeed, Paul’s
explicit naming of James, Cephas and John in 2:9 coupled with the plural ἰδόντες
in verse 7 suggest that Paul understands this agreement to be binding between
all relevant Jerusalem and Antioch authorities, heightening the tension in his
recollection of the following Antioch incident.219
Two final points regarding Paul’s relationship with the key Jerusalem leaders are
found in verses 8 and 10. In the former, it is interesting that he names Peter as an
apostle and does not claim the same title for himself. Some have read this to
indicate that Paul was not acknowledged in an apostolic role at the council,
unlike Peter. This could in turn to be read as a hint that Paul was viewed as a
‘lesser’ authority at the coucil, counter to his own claims. This interpretation
should, however, be offset against the frequent claims to that title that Paul has
already made in the letter, and regardless, his understanding that his authority
was of divine origin. Taylor suggests that the point is made less relevant anyway,

219 McLean, B.H. “Galatians 2. 7-‐9 and the Recognition of Paul’s Apostolic Status at the Jerusalem
Conference: a Critique of G. Luedemann’s Solution” in New Testament Studies 37.1 (1991), 72.
48

as the term ‘apostle’ in the context of Paul’s discussion of the division of labour in
verses 7-‐9 relates to the task of being sent in mission to those groups, not as a
title of personal authority.220 A final point is from the restriction that Paul
recounts the Jerusalem apostles giving in Galatians 2:10, that he and the Antioch
church should ‘remember the poor’. It has been argued that if this refers to a
collection for the Jerusalem church, that this would indicate the pre-‐eminence of
Jerusalem as an authoritative community, and hence a concession by the
Antiochene leaders of obedience to Jerusalem.221 This is possible, but somewhat
speculative from what little evidence exists.
In summary it is difficult to comment in too much detail how the Jerusalem
Council itself reflects on the relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem
apostles. While each account emphasizes the role of the key players differently,
the harmonious resolution to the council makes it difficult to ascertain where the
authority may have lain should dissension have occurred.
2.4.2 The Jerusalem decree (Acts 15:22-‐35)

At first glance, the account of the letter sent from Jerusalem to Antioch in Acts
15:22-‐35 appears to follow chronologically and immediately after the council.
The text itself suggests that no time has elapsed, and the key players are the
same, as the ‘apostles and elders’ send the letter with Paul and Barnabas, who
presumably would have still been in Jerusalem, preparing to return to Antioch at
the conclusion of the council. Treating it as a single unit with the Jerusalem
Council does, however, raise issues in reconciling Acts 15 and Galatians 2:1-‐10 as
referring to the same account. A major difficulty is that in Galatians 2:6 Paul
claims that ‘those leaders contributed nothing to me’, meaning, in part, to the
gospel message that he preached. The requirements of Acts 15:29 would imply
the opposite, and would be difficult to reconcile with Paul’s preaching of law-‐free

49

gospel in the rest of Galatians.222 Further, the Acts account has him carrying the
letter and delivering it faithfully to the congregation in Antioch (Acts 15:30-‐31).
If Paul already knew about these conditions before the Antioch incident, his
outrage and public condemnation of Peter’s behaviour in Galatians 2:11-‐12
would be out of place, as Peter’s actions would be understandable in the light of
the decree.
If Galatians 2:1-‐10 equates to the account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15,
and given that Paul goes on to confront Peter confident in the understanding that
Jerusalem should back a law-‐free gospel (or at least a food-‐restriction free one),
then Galatians 2:11-‐14 occurs most likely after Acts 15:21, but before Acts
15:22.223 As a result, the hypothesis has been put forward that in Acts 15:1-‐35,
Luke has combined two separate meetings in Jerusalem, the first with Paul and
Barnabas present, and the latter meeting after they have left.224 Fitzmyer points
out that both Acts 15:22 and 25, where ‘with Paul and Barnabas’ / ‘with our
beloved Barnabas and Paul’ appear could be read to mean that Barnabas and
Paul are in fact ‘with’ the church in Antioch, and that in fact Judas and Silas are
the messengers who carry the letter and deliver it to Antioch, where Paul and
Barnabas are already present.225 If Paul were present for the discussion of Acts
15:22-‐35, he would necessarily be content with the restrictions of the decree,
while as he presents himself in Galatians 2:11-‐14 he clearly would not be. In
Fitzmyer’s theory, Paul would never agree to the dietary restrictions, and hears
about them only as they arrive, hence Galatians 2:11-‐14 is his response to the
decree.
This does not, however, explain why Paul makes no mention of the decree in
Galatians, given that the above theory would place it between Galatians 2:10 and
2:11 and so Paul would have been aware of it at his time of writing. Some have in

224 Brown, Peter in the New Testament, 53-‐54; Fitzmyer, Acts, 553, Luedemann, Opposition to
Paul, 36.
50

fact dated the whole book of Galatians before Acts 15:22 for just this reason.226 If
Paul was not present for the second debate and the drafting of the letter, though,
this can be easily explained. The decrees in Acts 15:29 represent a significant
setback for Paul and his law-‐free gospel. With the restrictions imposed, Paul
gains nothing, and his silence on the issue coupled with his ongoing practice
described in his letters suggests he gave little regard to the demands.227 It is also
possible that Galatians 2:11-‐14 happens before Acts 15:22-‐35, that is, it is the
catalyst for the second meeting, and Acts 15:29 is Jerusalem’s response. The
letter of Acts 15 is sent to Cilicia, which can be understood to contain Galatia, and
so would support this being a response to the Galatian situation.228
Again, if this is the case, Paul’s ongoing practice suggests that he has no intention
of conforming. I will discuss this possibility more fully in the next chapter,
however it is worth noting at this point that this construction of a timeline for
the components of Galatians 2 and Acts 15 begins to reveal some back and forth
between Paul and Jerusalem and some degree of a growing tussle for control
over the Gentile churches.
The conflict itself is consistent with growing Gentile numbers in the Christian
movement. Food laws were a fairly typical point of contention at the time for
fellowship between Jews and Gentiles, and it is not unexpected that at the time of
Paul’s letter to the Galatians that the practices that had been in play beforehand
for Jews and Gentiles to mix had to some degree carried over to the Christian
gatherings.229 The question, then, is less about how Gentiles can be saved, as was
the first council in Acts 15:1-‐21, but about how Gentile believers, who do not
follow the food laws when with one another, can enjoy fellowship with Jewish
believers, who do.230 This is a question of particular relevance to the churches

226 Talbert, C.H. “Again: Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem” in Novum Testamentum 9 (1967), 32.
227 Parker, “Once More, Acts and Galatians”, 176-‐177.
51

outside of Judea, which were increasingly mixed, and in many cases Gentile
dominated.
2.5 Conclusions

The Jerusalem meeting takes place as a result of a situation in Antioch, which the
local church authorities are unable to resolve without appealing to Jerusalem.
While Paul makes every effort to emphasize his autonomy from any authority,
the physical reality of a delegation travelling to Jerusalem implies an influence of
Jerusalem as the ‘mother church’ over Antioch as the ‘daughter church’, an
influence that existed in the minds of the congregations, if not all of those leaders
involved in the council itself. The account is placed centrally in the book of Acts
for just this reason.231 At the heart of the debate is the question of how Gentiles
are to be included into the Christian community, particularly to what degree they
are obliged to obey the law with circumcision as a key marker. Paul and
Barnabas as representatives of Antioch advocate and have practised a law-‐free
mission, while some factions in Jerusalem apparently advocate an opposite
extreme, where Gentiles are expected to become Jewish proselytes as a part of
their conversion process. Peter in particular is presented in both accounts as
being sympathetic to Paul’s point of view, as is James to some degree, although
he is more qualified. The two accounts also suggest the presence of Titus and
John, as well as the potential for other unnamed individuals.
Ultimately, both accounts of the Jerusalem meeting describe a peaceful process
where agreement is eventually reached. It is reasonable to assume that this is an
accurate picture of the meeting, although what follows in Galatians and to a
lesser decree Acts suggests that there is still grounds for tension between the
two positions, and perhaps an indication that the outcomes of this first meeting
were not precise enough to prevent future disagreement. A reasonable summary
of the meeting is that the κοινωνία to which Paul refers in Galatians 2:9 is a

52

recognition on the part of Jerusalem that the mission to Gentiles, without
obedience to the law required, should be permitted to continue in Antioch and
most likely in the surrounding regions in which Paul and Barnabas had been
active. It is not out of the question that the conclusions of the meeting were only
intended to settle this direct regional dispute rather than apply more generally,
and this does not necessarily preclude Jewish believers from continuing to live
by the law in the context of their Christian lives.232 This makes sense both of
Paul’s proposed division of mission, and of the provisions added by James, which
largely serve to provide space for fellowship between law-‐conscious Jews and
Gentiles in the Christian context.
There is indication, however, that Paul did not acquiesce fully with the restrictive
Gentile mission as presented by James in Acts 15:19-‐21, formalized in the
Jerusalem decree in Acts 15:29. What James proposes is significantly more
restrictive than what Peter experienced in Acts 10-‐11 or that he recounted at the
meeting. Paul never makes mention of these restrictions in Galatians, unless he is
indirectly speaking of them negatively when he rejects Peter’s withdrawal in the
Galatians 2:11-‐14 incident.233 Paul intends to present a community that is
inclusive and egalitarian, so long as divine authority is respected over human
authority. His relationship with the apostles should be understood in this
context.234 Acts portrays no tension between Paul and either Peter or James.
Luke is very concerned to bring out and emphasize Paul’s strong relationship
with the Jerusalem leaders while Paul, to quote Dunn, is ‘like a cat on a hot tin
roof’ on the same subject.235 Peter disappears from view in Acts from this point,
which is unusual, even with James’ rise to power in Jerusalem.236 Both of these
facts suggest that the harmony of Acts may be overstated. Luedemann further
notes that Paul does not explicitly say anything that suggests that the false
brothers of Galatians 2:4 left the church, or were compelled in any way to do so,
indicating they may have continued to work to promote their view of a law-‐

233 Brown, Peter in the New Testament, 50-‐51.
53

based gospel.237 It is hard to imagine that the parties in Antioch immediately put
aside their differences. Luedemann goes on to suggest that Galatians 2:9 may
even indicate Paul glossing over a prohibition placed on him preaching to Jewish
audiences, that is, that the council had restricted him to Gentile mission.238 As
was shown in the first chapter, in all likelihood Peter went on preaching beyond
Jewish communities, and Paul did not limit himself to Gentile ones, although this
does not preclude the Jerusalem council having reached such a conclusion. The
apparently positive outcome reached at the council and the selective nature of
the evidence reported makes it easy for either account to move around any
tension that may have remained at the conference. At this stage it is evident that
Paul’s relationship with Peter and James is not as harmonious as is suggested by
Acts, although for the present at least Paul needs the appearance of their support
for his ministry to continue successfully.

54

Chapter 3 – The Incident at Antioch

3.1 Conflict in Antioch.
In Galatians 2:11, Paul takes a more aggressive tone as he turns to the
confrontation between himself and Peter in Antioch. As has been shown, this
event takes place at a later date to the Jerusalem Council, as enough time has
passed for Paul, Peter and Barnabas to now all have travelled to Antioch and be
established in a habit of regular table fellowship there (see Galatians 2:12).
Taylor places this interval at a few months, long enough for the necessary travel
to take place, and short enough for Paul to draw implications of continuity
between verses 10 and 11.239 It is reasonable to expect that Paul had initially
welcomed Peter’s arrival in Antioch as a fellow apostle.240 The decree made by
James, however, was not likely to have been propagated yet, and in fact quite
likely post-‐dates the conflict Paul is about to describe.241 Were the decree known
in Antioch at the time of Galatians 2:11, as Acts 15 could be read to suggest, the
idea of the conflict is almost unthinkable, as Paul would have little basis to
defend his position.242 Dibellius suggests instead Luke has inserted it in Acts 15,
in order to give the impression that it was approved while all of the senior
church leaders were together in Jerusalem.243
Hengel suggests that the decree of Acts 15 was probably a compromise after the
event, albeit one that failed, to promote harmony amongst the church.244 As will
be shown below, it is likelier that it was a decree promulgated by James as a
corrective to Paul and his increasingly law-‐free gospel. The fallout from Antioch
and Paul’s ensuing independent travels and ministry further afield formed, in the

242 Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, 99 contra Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem,
123.
243 Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, 107.
55

eyes of conservative Jewish Christianity, a crisis situation requiring strong action
to confirm Jerusalem’s authority and to appease conservative Jewish pressure.245
The confrontation takes place over the issue of food laws, specifically how Jews
and Gentiles might eat together in the church, which was not a new topic in the
diaspora.246 The practices described in Acts 15, and then Peter’s behaviour in
Galatians 2, would not be out of place in first century synagogues and other
mixed communities. Paul is evidently developing a different view on this matter
from what had previously been the common practice. The proposed division of
ministry in Galatians 2:7 would prove to be unworkable in an environment like
Antioch, where the lines between Jew and Gentile were not as clear.247 This mix
of cultures and identity would continue to increase in larger diaspora churches
throughout the first century, although key leaders would remain Jewish for some
time.248 The contrast between the co-‐operation of Paul, James, Peter and John in
Galatians 2:1-‐10 and the conflict in Galatians 2:11 onwards shows the
deteriorating relationship between Paul and Jerusalem.249

3.2 Causes of the Incident, and the key players involved

3.2.1 Table Fellowship and food laws

Table fellowship was one of a number of significant features for diaspora
Judaism during the 40s and 50s, and indeed would remain so until the revolt
against Rome. This was an area where most Jews would have felt some pressure
to act carefully.250 For Jews under Roman rule, meat sacrificed to idols was an
ever-‐present threat, particularly outside of Israel, and abstaining from food
deemed ‘unclean’ had become one of the obvious identity markers for diaspora

247 Martyn, Galatians, 202; Hengel, Saint Peter, 52, 56; Linton, “The Third Aspect”, 89.
249 Betz, Galatians, 49, 104.
250 J.D.G. Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-‐18)” in Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 5 (1983), 12

56

Jews. This is shown in Jewish writings such as Maccabees and Joseph and
Aseneth, as well as elsewhere in Paul’s own writings.251 The common dating of
the incident at Antioch somewhere in the late 40s, places it in the midst of this
period.252
Neusner argues that as many as two thirds of the purity laws common in the first
century related to the consumption of food, which is an indicator of how relevant
this issue was.253 It would have been easier to control food that was consumed in
the home, but eating with others non-‐Jews in particular was difficult for those
wishing to remain ceremonially clean.254 While both laws and attitudes were
common, however, they were not likely to be uniform throughout the diaspora,
as each local community would have some autonomy, within reason, to
determine community norms.255 Having said this, the growing nationalistic and
anti-‐Roman feelings in Jerusalem would necessarily have some impact on other
Jewish communities, particularly in a city like Antioch, which had a large Jewish
diaspora community, close to Israel, and on a major land travel route. Further, an
observable trend of Jewish sectarianism was that wherever a sects’ activity was
perceived as a risk to Jewish traditions, its members would come under pressure
to remain loyal to their Jewish heritage.256 This leads to an expectation that
relaxed table fellowship in Antioch would be perceived as a threat to Jewish
purity and identity.
3.2.2 Table fellowship in Antioch
The food in question is likely to be the fellowship meal of the early Christian
community, where food to share would be prepared at home, and then brought

251 Slee, The church in Antioch, 17-‐18; Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, 118.
252 Depending on the usual debate over the date of the JC, and the relationship between Acts 15
and Galatians 2. Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch”, 4.

57

to a common venue.257 The difficulty, then, for a Jew wishing to maintain food
purity laws would be the unknown origins of what was offered. In the mixed
community of Antioch there would necessarily have been some level of table
fellowship and interaction between Jews and Gentiles, especially with proselytes
and other Gentiles attracted to the Jewish faith.258 Little is known, however,
about how frequent such common meals were, and hence to what degree the
position of the ‘men from James’ represented change. Because the Jewish
community already had a number of Gentiles connected to it, and because of
their active mission amongst the wider Gentile population, the early Christian
church in Antioch would have become increasingly mixed, though the key
leaders remained Jewish and it was still considered a sect of Judaism.259 Josephus
records that a large number of Gentiles had converted to Judaism independently
and prior to the Christian movement, and that most of them were willing to
conform to Jewish food laws as part of their conversion.260 In other words, the
culture and precedent for Judaizing were already in place. The problem of table
fellowship then, was not simply one of how two differing groups could find
common ground, but of how much a Jew could lawfully accommodate Gentiles
within the structures of ritual purity. It was expected that in the eschatological
age, Gentiles would come to worship the Jewish God, however there was not a
uniform belief as to how this would come about and to what extent the Gentiles
would ‘become like Jews’.261
Further, it is likely that different individuals had different standards, and so it is
conceivable that the ‘men from James’, having come from increasingly
conservative Jerusalem, would have more restrictive dietary habits than the
Antiochenes. There are several alternatives put forward for what caused the
Antioch confrontation. One suggestion is that the whole Antioch community had
abandoned food restrictions altogether. This is consistent with the account of
Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10-‐11, however it is unlikely that Jewish believers

257 Jervis, Galatians, 90.
261 Slee, The church in Antioch, 26, 31.
58

would have abandoned the law so easily and so conclusively, and equally
unlikely that the Gentile believers would have expected it of them.262 Another
suggestion is that the Antiochene church observed some level of the food laws,
but the men from James sought to force them to tighten their regulations and
perhaps insist that the Gentile converts of the church become full proselytes
before they could particulate fully in the church community.263 The
confrontation, though, seems focused on food laws without mentioning
circumcision, as would be expected if proselytism were expected. A final and
similar possibility is that the Antiochenes had worked out a compromise
amongst themselves that allowed them to eat together without undue
compromise by the Gentiles, perhaps along the lines of what is described in Acts
15:20, 29.264 The Jerusalem leaders, then, or at least these men from James, had
imagined that the early churches would be more segregated between the
Gentiles and the Jews.265 This expectation could stem from Paul’s agreement
with Peter in Galatians 2:7, where he and Peter divided the ministry to Gentiles
and Jews between themselves.266 The men from James, then, could be seen as
attempting to enforce this division.
If they did come as representatives of James, which will be considered in section
3.2.3, the Jerusalem leaders effectively forced this confrontation over fellowship
by attempting to extend their authority over Antioch directly.267 It has been
shown in chapter 1 that this authority existed informally, but an overt display of
control creates opportunity and cause for resistance. Additionally, this question
of authority becomes more relevant if, as has been suggested, the letter was
written to the South Galatian community, which comprised churches Paul and
Barnabas had established while acting as delegates of the Antioch church, and
hence daughter churches of Antioch, and expected to follow Antioch’s lead. 268 If
this is the case, whatever happens in Antioch would be expected to apply in

262 Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch”, 29-‐30.
59

Galatia, making the recording of this event in Galatians 2:11-‐14 even more
significant.
3.2.3 τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου – the men from James
The instigators of the crisis in Galatia are identified as τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου,
indicating that they came from James the brother of Jesus’ base city of Jerusalem,
and claimed James’ authority for their message.269 Such a concise identification
suggests that Paul at least, and probably his readers, knew something of their
identity and the context of their presence.270 The phrase connects them to James,
but is not precise enough to address the degree to which they accurately
represented James’ view on the issue of fellowship meals, and whether James
had sent them to play a particular role in Antioch or they had come of their own
volition. In analyzing the language, Taylor argues that if ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου is
associated more closely to the preceding verb, ἐλθεῖν, than ἐλθεῖν is associated
with τινας, it suggests that James is directly responsible for their actions, that is,
the emphasis falls on their proceeding directly from James.271 Certainly, their
position fits with what might be expected from James.272 Further, the encounter
appears deliberate. Given that Peter is already present in Antioch, this is not
merely a courtesy visit from apostolic oversight, but purposeful. Given the size
and importance of the Antioch church, it is hard to imagine anyone assuming
authority without Jerusalem’s knowledge and authority behind them, and Paul
makes no effort to question the identity of the men in Galatians 2:12 in the way
that he does in 2:4.273 These are, then, are likely to be different groups, and need
to be treated independently.274 It is likely that these men found some factional
support already in Antioch with the conservative Jewish-‐Christian group with
whom they formed an alliance, and then advocated for greater separation of Jew

274 A.F.J. Klijn, “The Study of Jewish Christianity” in New Testament Studies 20.4 (1974), 420.
60

from Gentile.275 Catchpole suggests that, if this account followed the decree of
Acts 15:23-‐29, that they may be carrying this decree to Antioch, however this is
difficult to reconcile with the fact that Paul and Peter arrive in Antioch and are
enjoying table fellowship there, as Paul suggests in Galatians 2:14, fellowship
which is then disturbed by a decree of which Paul was supposedly not only
aware but the bearer of in Acts 15:22, 25.276
3.2.4 The role of Peter (and Barnabas)
Peter again plays a significant role as the representative of the Jerusalem
apostles in Galatia at the time. Finding Peter in Antioch is unexpected, given that
up until the time of the Jerusalem Council, which concludes in the previous verse
of the Galatians account, he was in Jerusalem.277 Evidently at least enough time
has passed for Paul, Barnabas and Peter to all travel there, and for some routine
to be established by their eating habits evidenced in 2:14.278 This may be the
beginning of Peter’s missionary (or counter-‐missionary if Hengel is to be
believed) journeys into the West.
At this time there was significant pressure on the leaders of the Jerusalem church
to conform to Jewish conservatism, which in turn may have led the Jerusalem
leaders to pressure diaspora Christian gatherings to follow suit.279 With this
understanding it is conceivable that the men ‘from James’ could actually have
been sent as a result of such pressure, potentially even non-‐Christian Jewish
representatives from Jerusalem sent to monitor the Christian sect. This adds
another possibility, that Peter’s departure from Jerusalem could be the result of
his being perceived as too Hellenized and lax on legal obedience following his

275 Luedemann, Opposition to Paul, 38; R.E. Brown and Meier, J.P. Antioch and Rome: New
Testament cradles of Catholic Christianity. (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1983)26; J.D.G. Dunn,
“Echoes of Intra-‐Jewish Polemic in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians” in JBL 112.3 (1993), 461.
276 D.R. Catchpole, “Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree” in New Testament Studies 23.4 (1977),
442.
279 Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem, 130; Taylor, “Apostolic Identity”, 109.
61

interaction with Cornelius in Acts 10-‐11. If so, this influences the way that
Peter’s fear of the circumcision group in Galatians 2:12 should be understood.
While interpretation of this verse is difficult, as Paul is highly polemical at this
point, it is striking that he identifies Peter’s fear of this group as the cause, rather
than blaming James.280 If they are acting on James’ authority, it is surprising that
Paul does not directly accuse James, and the fact that he does not suggests the
presence of conservative Jewish pressure bearing down on both Jerusalem and
Antioch, and that this is the basis for Peter’s fear.281 This makes sense of Peter,
Barnabas and the other Jewish Christians’ behaviour, then, as conservative
Jewish factions would be concerned only with the behaviour of the Jews, and
hence in Galatians 2:13 it is only the Jews who draw back into conservative
eating behaviour.
To paint Peter in a positive light, it is entirely possible that he, in contrast to Paul,
understood this separation at mealtimes to reflect the proper Jew/Gentile
demarcation within the church.282 For some early believers, welcoming Gentiles
into the community may have been seen only as a first step towards full
conversion and obedience to the law.283 Hence, while they may have been willing
to make some compromise for the sake of fellowship, the Jewish believers may
still have held to the need for ritual purity. It is also possible that this was
supported by many of the Gentiles within the community, who could have
willingly eaten apart from Jewish brothers and sisters whom they knew would
need to return to Jerusalem and defend their Jewish identity and purity there.284
Peter was the ‘apostle to the Jews’, and if he were to reach the Jews, he would
have to have access to their community.285 Barnett suggests that earlier in the
Christian movement, even up to the Jerusalem Council, Peter, James and
Barnabas had acted more liberally in their enthusiasm, but were now retreating
from these views to some degree as the Jewish response became more

280 Koptak, “Rhetorical Identification”, 167; Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem, 133.
281 Slee, The church in Antioch, 46; Hengel, Saint Peter, 54; Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch”, 34.
285 Martyn, Galatians, 242; Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch”, 35; Betz, Galatians, 108.
62

apparent.286 Peter may have felt that he had made adequate concession to Paul
and his law-‐free emphases in reaching the Gentile populace, and was now
returning to his more comfortable position.287
3.2.5 The response from Paul
In Galatians 2:11-‐14 Paul arrives at the climax of his account of his personal
history in the opening chapters. He has done everything that he can until this
point to establish both his own independence and faithfulness to his received
gospel message, and to give the impression of having made every effort to
partner with the Jerusalem leaders. It is easy to imagine that Paul would resent
any perceived attempt from James to enforce his authority over Antioch,
particularly in a way that dramatically undercuts Paul’s own developing theology
of law and grace, and given Paul’s understanding of their arrangement in
Galatians 2:6-‐9.288 This latter point is supported by Paul’s argument, which he
states in terms not of he and Peter disagreeing theologically, but rather as Peter
changing his position out of fear from human pressure, using the polemic
ὑποκρίσει.289
Weiss raises the argument that this conflict would be impossible were the decree
of Acts 15 already in place.290 Certainly sufficient time had passed between
Galatians 2:10 and 11 for Paul, Peter and Barnabas to establish themselves in
Antioch. As indicated in section 2.4.2, this can be explained if Luke has combined
more than one meeting in his account, particularly if he has read the Jerusalem
agreement back to the context of Acts 15, and if the primary confusion is one
unique to mixed race churches. It becomes clear that for Paul the understanding
of Galatians 2:6-‐9 was not specific enough for the Antioch context.291 Certainly

290 Talbert, “Again: Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem”, 36.
291 Dunn, “Echoes of Intra-‐Jewish Polemic”, 464.
63

Acts 15:36 has not taken place at this point, as Paul makes no mention of tension
between himself and Barnabas, which one would expect given his polemical
language in these verses.292 Paul himself is not incapable of making
accommodation for particular traditions, as he himself writes in 1 Corinthians
9:19-‐23.293 This suggests that he had expected something more binding to have
been in place regarding table fellowship before this event, as if the agreement
were not meant to be binding, he would have expected it to be compromised at
times.294 The strength of his reaction suggests that this was not the case.
Paul’s relationship to Barnabas is also significant here. Acts 15:36-‐41 records the
break between Paul and Barnabas over the latter’s desire to take John Mark on a
later mission journey. John Mark was Barnabas’ cousin (Colossians 4:10), and
Peter’s faction of the church met in his house (Acts 12:12).295 It is entirely
possible that the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas here is connected to
the account of Acts 15:36-‐41, with Peter as the catalyst for division between
Barnabas and Paul.
3.3 Conflict in Antioch

3.3.1 Peter before and after the men from James

Paul launches the section by emphasizing Peter’s arrival in Antioch as an
outsider. Peter had probably been in Antioch for some time, as Paul himself
suggests in his use of the imperfect συνήσθιεν in verse 12, suggesting a repeated
and habitual process from which Peter gradually withdraws.296 Despite this, Paul
places the conflict as taking place ‘when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch’.297
Though Paul is apparently questioning Peter’s presense there, the content of his

293 Linton, “The Third Aspect”, 88.
297 Galatians 2:11
64

rebuke here is Peter’s changed habit of drawing back from eating with the
Gentiles. Jews in the diaspora often had established rules for how they could and
could not mix with the Gentile community without losing their Jewish
distinctiveness. This means that for Peter to be described as ‘living like a Gentile’
(Galatians 2:14) he has gone beyond these, that is, he had already compromised
his ritual cleanliness for the sake of fellowship.298 Dunn suggests that these
words may have represented the accusations that the men from James had made
against him, and so Paul is echoing them in a form of mockery at Peter’s
reversal.299 Paul interestingly uses the present tense, which suggests that Peter
was perceived as having made at least some degree of formal break with Judaism
through his actions, although no more is said on exactly how.300
There is no extant account of Peter’s version of the event, and so it is impossible
to tell how readily he returned to advocating segregation between Jews and
Gentiles in the community.301 Paul’s use of the term ἀφώριζεν to describe Peter’s
behaviour may be a play on the self-‐identity of the Pharisees, who as a leading
conservative movement were likely influential on the Jerusalem church over
such issues.302 There is no suggestion that Peter attempted to compel either
Jewish or Gentile believers into adopting his position, Paul simply states that he
is acting as a hypocrite, and that others follow his example.303 Given Paul’s attack
on Peter’s actions here, it is safe to assume that if Paul had evidence that Peter
had tried to compel others to behave as he did, Paul would have been specific. It
is likely, then, that Peter did not attempt to enforce such a division, and may not
have foreseen the results of his individual actions.304 Nonetheless, as a significant
leader and representative of Jerusalem, he would have had a natural
authoritative role, and it is unlikely that he would have been completely unaware
of this. It is possible that Peter understood different meal times for the Jewish
and Gentile communities to be a reasonable extension to his and Paul’s

300 Hengel, Saint Peter, 84; Dunn, “Echoes of Intra-‐Jewish Polemic”, 468.
65

respective missions to Jew and Gentile described in Galatians 2:8. The Gentiles,
in turn, may well have graciously acceded to this, knowing the importance of
ritual purity for those Jews who needed to interact with the more conservative
branches of Judaism.305 An interesting side question of this is the self-‐identity of
those Gentiles in the Antioch church. While it is almost certain that first century
Jewish Christians would identify as Jews who followed Jesus, it is less clear
whether Gentile believers understood themselves as Jewish proselytes, or
something else. Either way, they would be sensitive to the position of the Jewish
members of their community.
Regardless of Peter’s willingness or intention, to take part in such an action
necessarily imparts an implied segregation on the two groups, and an
implication of superiority over outsiders.306 It is clear from Paul’s language that
previously, before the men from James arrived, Jews and Gentiles had found a
way of eating together, and presumably not according to strict dietary laws, for if
this were the case the conflict would not likely have arisen.307 Peter would have
been included in this arrangement. This point of prior agreement between him
and Paul makes his actions harder to understand, and are a key indication that
his attitudes have changed as a result of the men from James, and that Paul’s
accusations against him are to some degree justified.308
Clearly, the men who arrive from James act as a catalyst for this change. The
terminology is ambiguous, and it is impossible to tell whether or not they
represented James accurately, or had even been sent by him.309 Regardless of
this ambiguity, they evidently carry sufficient authority that they are able to
influence even Peter.310 It is noteworthy at this point that Paul chooses to attack
Peter and not James, the supposed instigator of the crisis. It is possible that Paul
is careful in choosing Peter as the easier target, indicating that James’ role in the

310 Martyn, Galatians, 233; Betz, Galatians, 7.
66

Jerusalem church may have already become more prominent. The conflict is
triggered as this group arrive from Jerusalem, and join an already extant group,
τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς, to take up a role of influence in the church. This, in addition to
the presence of Peter who was already in Antioch, created a situation where
there were disputed claims of authority.311 In the context of the narrative and the
history of the early church, the men represent the influence of James. The reader
is told nothing more of their identity, nor of their fate after the encounter.312
Martyn connects them with the false brothers of verse 4, however Paul does not
makes this connection himself, and such an association confuses the issue given
the favourable outcome in Galatians 2:1-‐10, and the conflict of Galatians 2:11-‐
14.313
3.3.2 Fellowship meals and Peter’s fear

It is not clear precisely what made food unclean in the environment of the
Antioch church. From the variety of laws regarding food it could be the means of
preparation, the type of food, or simply the contact and experience of dining
‘together’ with Gentiles, although the type and preparation of food were the most
common causes of concern.314 Given Paul’s overall theology, his contrast
between Jews and ‘sinful Gentiles’ almost certainly reflects the pejorative terms
used by the men from James and other Judaizers in the Antioch church. 315 The
implication of such language is that righteousness was brought about through
obedience to these laws, while all others were necessarily outside the
righteous.316 What this serves to do is to draw a very clear line between those
inside and outside, which, as has been said, was likely not previously the case in
Antioch. In withdrawing and thus breaking fellowship, Peter made food laws the
marker for covenant identity and faithfulness.317

313 Martyn, Galatians, 195-‐196.
314 Slee, The church in Antioch, 19; Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem, 131.
67

As indicated in section 3.2.4, Peter’s aim could well be to act in protection of
other Jewish believers who struggle with conscience issues over food laws, in the
vein of Paul’s own words in 1 Corinthians 9:20.318 Particularly against a
background of tension with Rome, and corresponding conservative Jewish self-‐
defining, the expectation could have been for the Gentiles, the party who have
the least to lose in the situation, to compromise for the sake of more general
unity in the church in general, as well as between the church in Antioch and that
of Jerusalem.319 It was around this time that the conservative resistance to
Roman encroachments on Jewish faith and practises began to take on a more
militant nature.320 Bruce suggests that Peter had for some time been softening
his stance on food regulations, following his encounter with Cornelius, and that
this had continued until the time of the conflict.321 This could easily have led to a
weakening of his position in Jerusalem, and the ascendancy of the more
conservative James. It may be that only when these men from James ‘follow’ him
to Antioch that Peter realises the implications of his actions.322 If Peter
understood his primary mission to be to the Jewish people, and probably the
Jews of the diaspora as suggested by his presence in Antioch and the tradition
assigned to him by the next generation of Christianity, then he would likely have
felt this mission to be threatened by the report of the men from James.323
Regardless, Paul emphasizes Peter’s wavering in the face of human opposition, in
contrast to his own claims in the opening chapter of Galatians to be guided only
by divine truth.324

3.3.3 Paul’s presentation of his own role

Galatians 2:11-‐14 is Paul’s own account of the incident in Antioch, and is
deliberately used by Paul here to bolster his position with the Galatian church.
He thus presents himself in the best possible light, and paints Peter as in breach

318 Bruce The epistle of Paul to the Galatians, 133; Bauckham, “Barnabas in Galatians”, 63.
319 Hengel, Saint Peter, 84, 91; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 490.
323 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 482; Catchpole, “Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree”, 440.
68

of the Jerusalem agreement.325 Dunn suggests that a desire to emphasize this
breach is behind Paul’s quick transition from the Jerusalem agreement to its
failure at Antioch, even though, as has been demonstrated, some time clearly
passed between them.326 While Paul had previously accepted the prominence
and ‘good faith’ of Jerusalem in his account, he would have felt particularly
threatened as first Peter and then the men from James attempted to exert
pressure in ‘his church’ in Antioch.327
Paul’s dismissive statement that Barnabas was ‘led astray’ by the others,
particularly in contrast with his harder polemic against Peter, serves to dismiss
Barnabas’ authority and position in Antioch.328 Barnabas, while certainly less
prominent than the Jerusalem figures, was a senior leader in the Antiochene
church and primary player in Antioch-‐Jerusalem relations. As such, he likely had
some role in negotiating the official response to these men from James,
suggesting that Paul is in fact the one taking the rogue stance. This would in turn
isolate Paul from both groups, Jewish Christian and Gentile, who would then
follow Barnabas.329 If this is the case, Paul may here be presenting some of the
bitterness of their split recorded by Luke at the end of Acts 15.
Paul’s aim in recounting these events is not primarily to criticize Peter. As has
been shown, Paul is generally quite positive towards the Jerusalem leaders in
these opening chapters of Galatians. Rather, he uses the account to turn
discussion towards the means of justification, proposing a system of faith, which
he contrasts to that of law.330 Essentially, then, he is seeking to advance an
alternate system of inclusion and exclusion. Peter’s error, in Paul’s eyes, is not
primarily in his identification that there are those ‘inside’ and ‘outside’, but that
he uses the wrong system to identify the two groups.331 Paul does not appeal to

325 Betz, Galatians, 104; Bruce The epistle of Paul to the Galatians, 143.
327 Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch”, 6; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 471.
69

his own apostolic authority to rebuke Peter, but to his understanding of the
consequences of his gospel.332 For Paul, the issue at stake is not a pragmatic one
of day-‐to-‐day operations within the church, but a theological one that underpins
the nature of his mission to the Gentiles and the unity of the church in the
future.333 He sees in the reversal of table fellowship the implication that Gentiles
would be forced to submit to the entirety of the law, thereby undermining the
church unity that he seeks to base on faith.334 In Galatians and other letters he
therefore builds a pattern of undermining the ability for such legal observances
as a grounds for confidence of an individuals standing with God.335 Dunn
suggests that it is this dramatic realization for Paul that begins to transition his
understanding of Christianity from a Jewish sect to a discrete faith in its own
right, although this would not be the pattern of the first century church more
broadly.336 For Paul, the crisis is a crossroads for the entire Christian movement.
3.4 The aftermath of the incident
It is fairly plausible to assume that the Jerusalem Council had not anticipated the
problems of mixed racial backgrounds on a scale like that seen in Antioch. When
Paul had previously brought Titus to Jerusalem as his ‘test case’ in Galatians 2:1-‐
3, the issue may have gone undetected as it took place on ‘home ground’ for the
conservative Jewish faction, and so the food would be largely safe.337 As conflict
mounted, Paul was determined to show that he planned to stand firm on his
gospel message. To do this, he presented a progressive series of encounters in
Jerusalem, Antioch and finally in the rest of the letter to the Galatians where he
took a firm stand against opposition.338 The encounters run together in the

332 Best, “Paul’s apostolic authority”, 27.
333 H. Raisanen, “Galatians 2.16 and Paul’s Break with Judaism” in New Testament Studies 31.4
(1985), 545.
334 Galatians 5:3; Bauckham, “Barnabas in Galatians”, 63, 66; Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem,
136.
336 Raisanen, “Galatians 2.16 and Paul’s Break with Judaism”, 547.
337 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 480;
70

narrative, Jerusalem transitions to Antioch from 2:10 to 2:11, and then the
Antioch narrative blends naturally into his rebuke of the Galatians.339
It is not clear that Peter accepted Paul’s rebuke, or indeed, whether Paul’s
position prevailed at all in Antioch.340 It is entirely likely that Paul lost the
argument here, largely because he makes no mention of the outcome, as he did at
the end of his account of the Jerusalem Council. Further, as it has been shown,
Peter has good reasons for his withdrawal, and so is unlikely to change unless
circumstances had changed to facilitate this.341 As Paul does not return to the
describe the aftermath of the event, and because of Luke’s harmonizing
tendencies, the outcome must be determined by examining other features of
Paul’s movements and relationships to try and determine what has happened. It
is telling that in Paul’s journeys as described in Acts, he never returns to the
regions of Syria and Cilicia, which Dunn suspects indicates that he no longer saw
them as ‘his’ churches.342 If Paul were defeated in Antioch, he would experience a
breach both with the churches of Cilicia and Syria, and also with Jerusalem. Luke
records a visit to Antioch in Acts 18:22-‐23, however he gives no details, and
could easily be glossing over the split.343 Paul never again travelled with anyone
from Jerusalem, and no longer mentioned any support from Antioch.344 Taylor
suggests that Paul had lost not only Jerusalem and Antioch, but Galatia as well,
and so he writes in an attempt to win it back.345 This explains his progression
from Jerusalem to Antioch to Galatia in the course of the letter.
It is worth noting that here only Paul’s account of the event remains, and that it
forms part of his self-‐defence to a church, which may have begun to doubt his
authority.346 He endeavours not to leave an impression that may suggest that

340 Dunn, Galatians, 199.
341 Slee, The church in Antioch, 43; Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch”, 38; Dunn, Beginning from
Jerusalem, 467; Catchpole, “Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree”, 439.
343 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 491-‐492.
71

listening to him would cut them off from Jerusalem or her leaders, and so, while
he is hard on Peter and Barnabas, says nothing of James or Jerusalem in the
fallout of Antioch. In Hengel’s opinion, the rift between Paul and Peter cannot be
portrayed deeply enough. Paul’s accusation was made in front of the community,
and therefore both the dispute and the outcome were public.347 Paul marks
himself as a ‘destroyer of peace’, with nothing in his account to suggest that the
Antiochenes sided with him, which is to be expected if he were trying to win over
the Galatians.348 Even at the very best, Paul’s relationship with Jerusalem would
have remained tense as a result of the encounters that he describes in Galatians
2. Paul finds himself isolated, and so has no choice but to try and assert an
independent authority to regain the support of the Galatian church.349 This also
explains his treatment of his apostleship in the opening chapter. There is no
record of the Jerusalem apostles giving him support, visit or aid during his
imprisonments, and over a century later, Irenaeus would report that many
Jewish Christians still considered him an apostate.350
The Antioch event marks the failure of the Jerusalem Council agreement, with
neither side willing to compromise.351 For Paul, while the tension with Jerusalem
was problematic, a break from Antioch meant that he needed a whole new sense
of identity, and this loss of his home base may have seen his understanding of
apostleship develop from the city-‐based model to one of a universal authority
figure.352 Having lost Antioch, Paul would need to run his missions
independently, without the support of a home city.353 Paul’s ongoing high regard
in the early church, however, and the survival of many of his letters makes it
highly unlikely that he was entirely cut off.354

350 Parker, “Once More, Acts and Galatians”, 176.
353 Matera, Galatians, 91.
72

James emerges as the key figure in Jerusalem, and Peter’s role is diminished even
in Jerusalem, hence he is dropped from Luke’s account after the Jerusalem
Council.355 Betz suggests that James, Peter and John together had represented a
moderate group while in partnership, a group which had now dissolved leading
James to stand alone at the head of a conservative, Jerusalem-‐based party.356
Many conservative Jews would have followed him in this position. In Acts 21:18,
as Paul returns to Jerusalem, Luke has him report to James, and follow through
on a Nazirite vow.357 Luedemann blames this on ‘zealots for the law’, not
necessarily part of the Christian group, but taking an interest in ensuring sects
stay in line.358 He identifies an anomaly in that there is no mention of Paul’s
collection for Jerusalem in Acts 21, a theme that dominates many of Paul’s own
letters. Luedemann believes that the collection was refused by the church in
Jerusalem perhaps from fear of association with Paul, who was now identified as
hostile to traditional Judaism.359
James’ decree in Acts 15:23-‐29 likely came after and in response to the Antioch
event, as an attempt to set an authoritative position and prevent further such
incidents.360 If it had been made prior to Antioch, Paul would not have had a case
with which to accuse Peter. Its placement in Acts 15 is another harmonizing
technique of Luke, placing the decree in a context where Paul is present, to give
the impression that all the key figures in church leadership approved.361 Given
Paul’s intransigence, this was a futile effort at reconciliation, and could
potentially have been an effort to censure Paul.362 Hengel argues that Peter’s
missionary journeys represented a ‘counter-‐mission’ in response to Paul,
representing James’ more conservative position in contrast to Paul’s law-‐free
gospel.363 He sees evidence of this in the ‘Cephas party’ in 1 Corinthians 1, and

357 Fitzmyer, Acts, 132; Luedemann, Opposition to Paul, 54.
361 Catchpole, “Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree”, 428.
363 Hengel, Saint Peter, 74-‐75.
73

Dunn suggests that there is evidence of this also in Corinth and Phillipi.364 Hengel
has a tendency to unify all of Paul’s opponents under this banner, but there is
ample evidence to identify ongoing conflict between Paul and Jerusalem. On top
of the alienation expressed here from Barnabas, Peter, Antioch and Jerusalem,
Paul makes frequent reference to opposition from Judaizers in his letters.365
Jewish Christianity would remain on working terms in Jerusalem right up until
the time of the Jewish War, however it was increasingly a minority group
numerically as more Gentiles were converted, and would never really recover
from the fall of Jerusalem.366 Nanos sees echoes of Jewish Christianity in the
Ebionites of the second and third centuries, but they lost most of their
influence.367 James himself was martyred somewhere around 62CE, about 5-‐10
years after Paul’s visit of Acts 21.368 Paul himself remained active in the west,
and if anything, became ever firmer in his proclamation of the law-‐free gospel.
What has been shown in this study, then, is that across Paul’s narrative of
Galatians 1 and 2 is a gradual decay of his relationship with the leaders of the
church in Jerusalem. His own account in Galatians serves as testimony that Paul
is not a “people-‐pleaser”, and will not back down when confronted. This self-‐
assessment is upheld in Paul’s later letters. The core doctrine over which they
disagree is the means by which Gentiles may be incorporated into the Christian
community in light of the Christ-‐event bringing about the end of the age, an event
that was expected by most Jews, but its nature disputed. Paul advocated a largely
law-‐free gospel, and as his ministry developed, he firmed on this position. Peter
appears to have taken some initial steps in this direction, however at some point,
likely under pressure from conservative elements in Jerusalem, he withdrew to a
more law-‐abiding position. This was apparently not enough to prevent his loss of
primacy in Jerusalem to James. James was the most conservative of the early

364 Hengel, Saint Peter, 66; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 464.
366 Luedemann, Opposition to Paul, 61; Hengel, Saint Peter, 52.
367 Nanos, “Introducing ‘spies’ and ‘pseudo-‐brethren’”, 60.
74

church leaders, and applied pressure to diaspora churches to follow suit. This
position, however, weakened in turn as Jews first became a minority in the
Christian movement, and then was further diminished after the fall of Jerusalem
in 70CE. From this point, Pauline doctrine became increasingly common, albeit
after Paul, Peter and James themselves had all been martyred for their faith. Luke
gives a much more harmonized version this ongoing dispute in his account,
although the transition of power from Peter to James, the disappearance of Peter
from the narrative, and the carefully structured references to events shows his
efforts to present a unified early church.

There are several areas of further study which could extend what has been
presented here. Much could be gained from further investigation of the
background of synagogue and church communities in Antioch and Galatia,
particularly their ethnic makeup, development, and what can be known of the
diversity between different synagogues in the same city. A related area is the
self-‐identity of early Christians. Clearly Jews who joined the movement would
still identify as Jewish at least at this early stage, but the picture would be more
complex for Gentiles joining the church, particularly against the background of
proselytism and the attachment of God-‐fearers to the synagogues in the pre-‐
Christian era. The biblical evidence tells us much of how Paul and others saw
such church members, but less about how those church members understood
themselves. James is a figure who has remained in the background of this study.
Further research could be done into the nature of his role in Jerusalem, and his
relationship with Jewish authorities, as well as the development of the political
climate in Jerusalem up until the Jewish revolt.

75

Bibliography
Commentaries
Barrett, C.K. Acts : A Shorter Commentary. (London : T.&T. Clark, 2002).
Betz, H.D. Galatians: a commentary on Paul’s letter to the churches in Galatia.
(Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1979).
Bock, D.L. Acts. (Grand Rapids : Baker Academic, 2007).
Bruce F.F. The epistle of Paul to the Galatians: a commentary on the Greek text.
(Exeter : Paternoster Press, 1982).
Dunn, J.D.G. The Acts of the Apostles. (Peterborough : Epworth, 1996).
Dunn, J.D.G. The Epistle to the Galatians. (London : A&C Black, 1993).
Fitzmyer, J.A. Acts. (New York : Doubleday, 1998).
Fung, R.Y.K. The Epistle to the Galatians. (Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1988).
Jervis, L.A. Galatians. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999).
Martyn, J.L. Galatians. (New York : Doubleday, 1997).
Matera, F.J. Galatians. (Collegeville : Liturgical Press, 1992).
Moo, D.J. Galatians (Grand Rapids : Baker, 2001).
Monographs
Barnett, P. Paul in Syria: The Background to Galatians. (Milton Keynes:
Paternoster, 2014).
76

Best, E. “Paul’s apostolic authority” in Porter, S.E. and Evans, C.A. The Pauline
Writings. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).
Brown, R.E. Peter in the New Testament; a collaborative assessment by
Protestant scholars. (Minneapolis, Augsburg Pub. House, 1973).
Brown, R.E; Meier, J.P. Antioch and Rome: New Testament cradles of Catholic
Christianity. (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1983).
Dibelius, M. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. (London: SCM Press, 1956).
Dunn, J.D.G. Christianity in the Making: Beginning from Jerusalem (vol 2). (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).
Hengel, M. Saint Peter – the Underestimated Apostle. (Grand Rapids : Eerdmans,
2010).
Hengel, M. and Barrett, C.K. Conflicts and Challenges in Early Christianity.
(Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1999).
Hester, J.D. “Epideitic Rhetoric and Persona in Galatians 1 and 2.” in The
Galatians Debate. Ed. M.D. Nanos. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002).
Hill, C.C. “Acts 6:1 – 8:4: division or diversity.” in Witherington, B. History,
Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996).
Holmberg, B. Paul and Power: the structure of authority in the primitive church
as reflected in the Pauline epistles. (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1980).
Hurd, J.C. “Reflections concerning Paul’s ‘Opponents’ in Galatia” in Paul and His
Opponents. ed. Porter, S.E. (Leiden: Brill, 2005).
Koptak, P.E. “Rhetorical identification in Paul’s autobiographical narrative:

Galatians 1:13-‐2:14” in The Galatians Debate. Ed. M.D. Nanos. (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2002).
Luedemann, G. Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. (tr. E. Boring)
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989).
77

Nanos, M.D. “Introducing ‘spies’ and ‘pseudo-‐brethren’: the Jewish Intra-‐Group

Politics of Paul’s Jerusalem Meeting (Galatians 2:1-‐10)” in Paul and His
Opponents. ed. Porter, S.E. (Leiden: Brill, 2005).
Phillips, T.E. Paul, his letters, and Acts. (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers
Marketing, 2009).
Porter, S. The Paul of Acts. (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1999).
Slee, M. The church in Antioch in the first century C.E. (London: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2003).
Taylor, N. Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A study in relationships and authority in
earliest Christianity. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992).
Taylor, N. “Apostolic Identity and the conflicts in Corinth and Galatia” in Paul and
His Opponents. ed. Porter, S.E. (Leiden: Brill, 2005).
Vos, J.S. “Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians 1-‐2.” in The Galatians Debate. Ed.
M.D. Nanos. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002).
Weiss, J. Earliest Christianity: A history of the period A.D. 30-‐150 (vol 1). (New
York: Harper & Collins, 1959).
Zetterholm, M. The formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-‐Scientific

Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity. (London:
Routledge, 2003).
Journals
Agnew, F.H. “The Origin of the NT Apostle-‐Concept: A Review of Research” in JBL
105.1 (1986), 75-‐96.
Barrett, C.K. “Acts and the Pauline Corpus” in Expository Times 88.2 (1976), 2-‐5.
Bauckham, R. “Barnabas in Galatians” in Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 1 (1979), 61-‐70.
78

Beare, F.W. “Notes on Paul’s First Two Visits to Jerusalem” in JBL 63.4 (1944),
407-‐409.
Bondi, R.A. “Become Such as I Am: St Paul in the Acts of the Apostles” in Biblical
Theology Bulletin 27 (1997), 164-‐176.
Catchpole, D.R. “Paul, James and the Apostolic Decree” in New Testament Studies
23.4 (1977), 428-‐444.
Dahl, N.A. “A People for his name” in New Testament Studies 4.4 (1958), 319-‐
327.
deLacey, D.R. “Paul in Jerusalem” in New Testament Studies 20.1 (1973), 82-‐86.
Dunn, J.D.G. “Echoes of Intra-‐Jewish Polemic in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians” in
JBL 112.3 (1993), 459-‐477.
Dunn, J.D.G. “The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-‐18)” in Journal for the Study of the
New Testament 5 (1983), 3-‐57.
Dunn, J.D.G. “The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem according to
Galatians 1 and 2” in New Testament Studies 28.4 (1982), 461-‐478.
Gaventa, B.R. “Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm” in Novum
Testamentum 28.4 (1986), 309-‐326.
Howard, G. “Was James an Apostle” in Novum Testamentum 19 (1977), 63-‐64.
Hurtado, L.W. “The Jerusalem Collection and the Book of Galatians” in Journal for
the Study of the New Testament 2 (1979), 46-‐62.
Kirk, J.A. “Apostleship since Rengstorf: Towards a Synthesis” in New Testament
Studies 21.2 (1975), 249-‐264.
Klijn, A.F.J. “The Study of Jewish Christianity” in New Testament Studies 20.4
(1974), 419-‐431.
Lategan, B. “Is paul defending his apostleship in Galatians?” in New testament
Studies 34.3 (1988), 411-‐430.
79

Linton, O. “The Third Aspect” in Studia Theologica 3.1 (1949), 79-‐95.
McLean, B.H. “Galatians 2. 7-‐9 and the Recognition of Paul’s Apostolic Status at
the Jerusalem Conference: a Critique of G. Luedemann’s Solution” in New
Testament Studies 37.1 (1991), 67-‐76.
Mosbech, H. “Apostolos in the New Testament” in Studia Theologica 2.2 (1948),
166-‐200.
Munck, J. “Paul, the Apostles and the twelve” In Studia Theologica 3.1 (1949), 96-‐
110.
Parker, P. “Once More, Acts and Galatians” in JBL 86.2 (1967), 175-‐182.
Raisanen, H. “Galatians 2.16 and Paul’s Break with Judaism” in New Testament
Studies 31.4 (1985), 543-‐553.
Sanders, J.N. “Peter and Paul in Acts” in New Testament Studies 2.2 (1955), 133-‐
143.
Sanders, J.T. “Paul’s ‘Autobiographical’ statements in Galatians 1-‐2” in JBL 85.3
(1966), 335-‐343.
Talbert, C.H. “Again: Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem” in Novum Testamentum 9 (1967),
26-‐40.
Verseput, D.J. “Paul’s Gentile Mission and the Jewish Christian Community: A
Study of the Narrative in Galatians 1 and 2” in New Testament Studies 39.1
(1993), 36-‐58.
80

Paul Antioch and Jerusalem

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul Antioch and Jerusalem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem

Table of Contents

1.2 Defining an apostle 5

1.3 The Christian church in Antioch and Jerusalem 11

1.4 Leadership in Jerusalem 14

1.5 Dating and Background of Galatians 16

1.6 Galatians and Acts. 18

1.7 Paul’s Opponents. 21

1.8 Paul and Peter 22

2.2 Reason for the visit 27

2.3 Participants and their attitudes 30

2.3.1 Paul and Barnabas 31

2.3.2 Jerusalem leaders 32

2.3.3 The opponents 36

2.4 The outcome of the meetings in Acts 15. 42

2.4.1 The council proper (Acts 15:6-­‐21, Galatians 2:1-­‐10) 42

2.4.2 The Jerusalem decree (Acts 15:22-­‐35) 49

Chapter 3 – The Incident at Antioch 55

3.2 Causes of the Incident, and its key players 56

3.2.1 Table Fellowship and food laws 56

3.2.2 Table fellowship in Antioch 57

3.2.3 τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου – the men from James 60

3.2.4 The role of Peter (and Barnabas) 61

3.2.5 The response from Paul 63

3.3.1 Peter before and after the men from James 64

3.3.2 Fellowship meals and Peter’s fear 67

3.3.3 Paul’s presentation of his own role 68

3.4 The aftermath of the incident 70

Chapter 1 – Jerusalem and Antioch

1.2 Defining an apostle.

“Apostleship since Rengstorf”, 250.

Fortress Press, 1979).74

(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 18.

261; Betz, Galatians, 75.

Christianity. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 90, 93.

Press, 1989), 37.

(Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 175.

Munck, “Paul, the Apostles and the twelve”, 109.

Eerdmans, 2009), 435.

the Pauline epistles. (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1980), 19.

Collins, 1959), 143-­‐144; Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem, 75.

1.4 Leadership in Jerusalem

(Minneapolis, Augsburg Pub. House, 1973), 46.

1.5 Dating and Background of Galatians

Paternoster Press, 1982), 55; Betz, Galatians, 12.

Rapids : Eerdmans, 1988), 9.

1.6 Galatians and Acts.

letters, and Acts, 67, 73.

: Baker, 2001), 9.

1.7 Paul’s Opponents.

the New Testament 2 (1979), 50.

Chapter 2 – The Jerusalem Council

2.1 Paul in Galatians 2:1-­‐10 and Acts 15

Eerdmans, 2009), 464.

this confrontation, saying it is because of ‘a revelation’.

2.2 Reason for the visit

Christianity. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 101.

Press, 1989), 44.

2.3 Participants and their attitudes

2.3.1 Paul and Barnabas

Opponents. ed. Porter, S.E. (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 113.

2.3.2 Jerusalem leaders

(Minneapolis, Augsburg Pub. House, 1973), 27.

2.3.3 The opponents

2.4.1 The council proper (Acts 15:6-‐21, Galatians 2:1-‐10) 42

2.4.2 The Jerusalem decree (Acts 15:22-‐35) 49

Collins, 1959), 143-‐144; Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem, 75.

2.1 Paul in Galatians 2:1-‐10 and Acts 15

2.4.1 The council proper (Acts 15:6-‐21, Galatians 2:1-‐10)

2.4.2 The Jerusalem decree (Acts 15:22-‐35)

Nanos, M.D. “Introducing ‘spies’ and ‘pseudo-‐brethren’: the Jewish Intra-‐Group

Zetterholm, M. The formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-‐Scientific