Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 2:12
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
12, 13. The decree of the Council of Jerusalem had virtually exempted Gentile converts from the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law (see Act 15:1; Act 15:5; Act 15:28-29). It is probable that James, fearing lest the Jewish Christians should be led to claim the same exemption, sent delegates to Antioch to keep them steadfast in their adherence to it. This would be quite in accordance with his conduct as recorded Act 21:20-25. St Peter had been taught by a heavenly vision not to call any man common or unclean (Act 10:28). Before the coming of these delegates, he had boldly exercised his freedom in the Gospel, and had eaten with Gentile believers, not only at the Holy Communion and the Agap, or love feasts, but perhaps in social life. The Pharisees regarded such intercourse with abhorrence. They had murmured against our Lord, saying, ‘This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them’. [To those murmurs the Church owes the three parables of Luke 15 ] But on the arrival of the emissaries from James, Peter began to shew signs of timidity and gradually withdrew from the company of the Gentile Christians.
did eat ] used to eat with.
withdrew ] A word used of drawing off troops, and in nautical matters of shortening sail. It describes conduct the reverse of that boldness and impetuosity which had marked St Peter’s previous course.
fearing them which were of the circumcision ] fearing to give offence to the converts from Judaism. Not for the first time did Peter learn by experience that “the fear of man bringeth a snare”, Pro 29:25.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For before that certain came – Some of the Jews who had been converted to Christianity. They evidently observed in the strictest manner the rites of the Jewish religion.
Came from James – See the note at Gal 1:19. Whether they were sent by James, or whether they came of their own accord, is unknown. It is evident only that they had been intimate with James at Jerusalem, and they doubtless pleaded his authority. James had nothing to do with the course which they pursued; but the sense of the whole passage is, that James was a leading man at Jerusalem, and that the rites of Moses were observed there. When they came down to Antioch, they of course observed those rites, and insisted that others should do it also. It is very evident that at Jerusalem the special rites of the Jews were observed for a long time by those who became Christian converts. They would not at once cease to observe them, and thus needlessly shock the prejudices of their countrymen; see the notes at Act 21:21-25.
He did eat with the Gentiles – Peter had been taught that in the remarkable vision which he saw as recorded in Acts 10. He had learned that God designed to break down the wall of partition between the Jews and the Gentiles, and he familiarly associated with them, and partook with them of their food. He evidently disregarded the special laws of the Jews about meats and drinks, and partook of the common food which was in use among the Gentiles. Thus he showed his belief that all the race was henceforward to be regarded as on a level, and that the special institutions of the Jews were not to be considered as binding, or to be imposed on others.
But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself – He withdrew from the Gentiles, and probably from the Gentile converts to Christianity. The reason why he did this is stated. He feared those who were of the circumcision, or who had been Jews. Whether they demanded this of him; whether they encountered him in debate; or whether he silently separated himself from the Gentiles without their having said anything to him, is unknown. But he feared the effect of their opposition; he feared their reproaches; he feared the report which would be made to those at Jerusalem; and perhaps he apprehended that a tumult would be excited and a persecution commenced at Antioch by the Jews who resided there. This is a melancholy illustration of Peters characteristic trait of mind. We see in this act the same Peter who trembled when he began to sink in the waves; the same Peter who denied his Lord. Bold, ardent, zealous, and forward; he was at the same time timid and often irresolute; and he often had occasion for the deepest humility, and the most poignant regrets at the errors of his course. No one can read his history without loving his ardent and sincere attachment to his Master; and yet no one can read it without a tear of regret that he was left thus to do injury to his cause. No man loved the Saviour more sincerely than he did, yet his constitutional timidity and irresolutehess of character often led him to courses of life suited deeply to wound his cause.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 12. Before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles] Here was Peter’s fault. He was convinced that God had pulled down the middle wall of partition that had so long separated the Jews and Gentiles, and he acted on this conviction, associating with the latter and eating with them; but when certain Jews came from James, who it appears considered the law still to be in force, lest he should place a stumbling-block before them he withdrew from all commerce with the converted Gentiles, and acted as if he himself believed the law to be still in force, and that the distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles should still be kept up.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
It should seem that Peter had been at Antioch some time; while he was there, there came down certain Jews from James, who was at Jerusalem: before they came Peter had communion with those Christians at Antioch, which were by birth Gentiles, and at meals eat as they eat, making no difference of meats, as the Jews did in obedience to the ceremonial law; but as soon as these zealots for the Jewish rites (though Christians) were come, Peter withdrew from the communion of the Gentile Christians, and was the head of a separate party; and all through fear of the Jews, lest they should, at their return to Jerusalem, make some report of him to his disadvantage, and expose him to the anger of the Jews.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
12. certainmen: perhapsJames’ view (in which he was not infallible, any more than Peter) wasthat the Jewish converts were still to observe Jewish ordinances,from which he had decided with the council the Gentiles shouldbe free (Ac 15:19). NEANDER,however, may be right in thinking these self-styled delegates fromJames were not really from him. Ac15:24 favors this. “Certain from James,” may meanmerely that they came from the Church at Jerusalem under James’bishopric. Still James’ leanings were to legalism, and this gave himhis influence with the Jewish party (Ac21:18-26).
eat with . . . Gentilesasin Act 10:10-20; Act 10:48,according to the command of the vision (Ac11:3-17). Yet after all, this same Peter, through fear of man (Pr29:25), was faithless to his own so distinctly avowed principles(Ac 15:7-11). Werecognize the same old nature in him as led him, after faithfullywitnessing for Christ, yet for a brief space, to deny Him. “Everthe first to recognize, and the first to draw back from great truths”[ALFORD]. An undesignedcoincidence between the Gospels and the Epistle in the consistency ofcharacter as portrayed in both. It is beautiful to see how earthlymisunderstandings of Christians are lost in Christ. For in 2Pe3:15, Peter praises the very Epistles of Paul which he knewcontained his own condemnation. Though apart from one another anddiffering in characteristics, the two apostles were one in Christ.
withdrewGreek,“began to withdraw,” c. This implies a gradualdrawing back “separated,” entire severance.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For before that certain came from James,…. The Lord’s brother, mentioned before with Cephas and John, who resided at Jerusalem, from whence these persons came; and who are said to come from James, because they came from the place and church where he was, though, it may be, not sent by him, nor with his knowledge. They were such as professed faith in Christ; they were “judaizing” Christians believing in Christ, but were zealous of the law. Now before the coming of these persons to Antioch,
he, Peter,
did eat with the Gentiles; which is to be understood, not of eating at the Lord’s table with them, but at their own tables: he knew that the distinction of meats was now laid aside, and that nothing was common and unclean of itself, and that every creature of God was good, and not to be refused if received with thankfulness; wherefore he made use of his Christian liberty, and ate such food dressed in such manner as the Gentiles did, without any regard to the laws and ceremonies of the Jews; and in this he did well, for hereby he declared his sense of things, that the ceremonial law was abolished, that not only the Gentiles are not obliged to it, but even the Jews were freed from it, and that the observance of it was far from being necessary to salvation: all which agreed with the preaching and practice of the Apostle Paul, and served greatly to confirm the same, and for this he was to be commended: nor is this mentioned by way of blame, but for the sake of what follows, which was blameworthy:
but when they were come he withdrew and separated himself; not from the church, and the communion of it, for then he had been guilty of schism, but from private conversation with the Gentiles: he did not visit them in their own houses, and sit down at table and eat with them, as he was wont to do; which argued great inconstancy and instability, very unbecoming one that seemed to be, and was a pillar in the church of God, as well as much dissimulation, for he knew better than he acted; his conduct did not agree with the true sentiments of his mind, which he covered and dissembled; and which must be very staggering to the believing Gentiles, to see so great a man behave in such a manner towards them, as if they were persons not fit to converse with, and as if the observance of Jewish rites and ceremonies was necessary to salvation. What induced him to take such a step was, his
fearing them which were of the circumcision: that is, the circumcised Jews, who professed faith in Christ, and were just now come from Jerusalem; not that he feared any danger from them; that they would abuse his person, or take away his life; but he might either fear he should come under their censure and reproofs, as he formerly had for going to Cornelius, and eating with him and his; or lest that they should be offended with him, and carry back an ill report of him, as not acting up to his character as an apostle of the circumcision. This led him into such a conduct; so true is that of the wise man, that “the fear of man bringeth a snare”, Pr 29:25.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For before that certain came from James ( ). The reason () for Paul’s condemnation of Peter. Articular infinitive in the genitive after with the accusative of general reference (), “for before the coming as to some from James.” Does Paul mean to say that these “certain” ones had been sent by James to Antioch to inspect the conduct of Peter and the other Jewish brethren? Some scholars think so. No doubt these brethren let the idea get out that they were emissaries “from James.” But that idea is inconsistent with the position of James as president of the conference and the author of the resolution securing liberty to the Gentile Christians. No doubt these brethren threatened Peter to tell James and the church about his conduct and they reminded Peter of his previous arraignment before the Jerusalem Church on this very charge (Ac 11:1-18). As a matter of fact the Jerusalem Conference did not discuss the matter of social relations between Jews and Gentiles though that was the charge made against Peter (Ac 11:1ff.).
He did eat with the Gentiles ( ). It was his habit (imperfect tense).
He drew back (). Imperfect tense, inchoative action, “he began to draw himself () back.” Old word . See middle voice to dissemble (Acts 20:20; Acts 20:27), to shrink (Heb 10:38).
Separated himself ( ). Inchoative imperfect again, “began to separate himself” just like a Pharisee (see on 1:15) and as if afraid of the Judaizers in the Jerusalem Church, perhaps half afraid that James might not endorse what he had been doing.
Fearing them that were of the circumcision ( ). This was the real reason for Peter’s cowardice. See Ac 11:2 for “ ” (they of the circumcision), the very phrase here. It was not that Peter had changed his views from the Jerusalem resolutions. It was pure fear of trouble to himself as in the denials at the trial of Christ.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Did eat with [] . A. V. misses the force of the imperfect, marking Peter’s custom. Not only at church feasts, but at ordinary meals, in defiance of the Pharisaic that this prohibition was not binding (Act 10:28; Act 11:8, 9), and had defended that position in the apostolic conference (Act 14:7 ff.).
Withdrew and separated himself [ ] . Or, began to withdraw, etc. Upostellein only here in Paul. It means, originally, to draw in or contract. Thus of furling sails, closing the fingers. Middle voice, to draw or shrink back from through fear. Hence, to dissemble or prevaricate. There seems to be no special reason for making it either a military metaphor, as Lightfoot, or a nautical metaphor, as Farrar. See on Act 20:20.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For before that certain came from James,” (pro tou gar ethein tinas apo lakobou) “For before certain ones came from James evidently from the Jerusalem church where he was pastor, or as independent Christian Jewish evangelists (self-appointed), purported to be representing the Views of James which he did not admit, Act 15:1; Act 15:24.
2) “He did eat with the Gentiles,” (meta ton ethnon sunesthien), “He did eat in close affinity or colleague with the Gentiles;” The “he” referred to is Peter or Cephas who had been having social fellowship at common meals with the Gentiles, Act 10:28; Act 11:3.
3) “But when they were come,” (hote de elthon) “but when they came”; the “they” who (Gk. elthon) came of their own accord or will, purporting to represent James, even influenced Peter (in spite of his vision, that concerning the who and how of Salvation, God was no respector of persons) to turn away from eating with the Gentiles, Act 10:34; Act 10:43.
4) “He withdrew and separated himself,” (hup estellen kai aphorizen heauton) “He withdrew and separated himself;” once he who said, “I will never deny the Lord”, did it again; played the hypocrite.
BEWARE
“Beware of Peters words, nor confidentially say, never deny my Lord, But trust / never may.
-Anon.
5) “Fearing them which were of the circumcision,” (phoboumenos tous ek peristomes) “Fearing those out of the circumcision,” these self-appointed, fire-ball, independent, truth-squad-evangelists who purported to be from James and the “Big Church” at Jerusalem. They had gone up to Antioch on their own, teaching that it was necessary to be circumcised, keep the law of Moses, to be or stay saved, Act 15:1-2. Paul and Barnabas and Titus recognized these fellows as lying prophets trying to make a big name for themselves and they were found to be false prophets! Act 15:24; Act 20:28-30; Jud 1:3-4.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
12. For before that certain persons came. The state of the case is here laid down. For the sake of the Jews, Peter had withdrawn himself from the Gentiles, in order to drive them from the communion of the Church, unless they would relinquish the liberty of the Gospel, and submit to the yoke of the Law. If Paul had been silent here, his whole doctrine fell; all the edification obtained by his ministry was ruined. It was therefore necessary that he should rise manfully, and fight with courage. This shews us how cautiously we ought to guard against giving way to the opinions of men, lest an immoderate desire to please, or an undue dread of giving offense, should turn us aside from the right path. If this might happen to Peter, how much more easily may it happen to us, if we are not duly careful!
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(12) Certain came from James.The expression used leaves it an open question whether the persons intended brought, or claimed to bring, any sort of official authorisation from St. James (comp. Act. 15:24), or whether they merely belonged to the Church of Jerusalem, in which, if St. James was not actually bishop, he at least exercised a sort of presidential jurisdiction.
He did eat with the Gentiles.By eating with Gentiles a Jew contracted Levitical defilement. St. Peter had been accused of this before, on account of his intercourse with Cornelius. (Comp. Act. 11:3.) He had not, however, stability and firmness enough to treat the question of principle as settled for him then once for all, and he yielded to a repetition of the old remonstrances. Our Lord Himself had braved Jewish opinion on this point. (Comp. Luk. 15:2.)
When they were come.The reading of the oldest MSS. here is when he came, of which it seems impossible to make any satisfactory sense. It may have been a slip of the pen, either in the original or in some very early copy. Other instances of mistakes in the oldest MSS. would beMar. 4:21, under a candlestick, instead of on a candlestick; Joh. 1:15, he who said, for he of whom I said; and a Greek form in Php. 2:1.
Withdrew and separated himself.The Greek expression brings out the timid and gradual withdrawal, ending in complete separation.
Them which were of the circumcision.This appears to mean, not merely those who advocated circumcision, but those who were made converts from a state of circumcisioni.e., from Judaism.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
12. Certain came from James This may mean that they came from the Church of James at Jerusalem. It may be, also, that they came from James himself, but entirely misrepresented James, insisting on a rule that James did not assert. It may, finally, be that James really and truly, at this time, meant that Gentile Antioch should submit, and concede that while circumcision should no be obligatory upon Gentile Christians, yet uncircumcised Gentile Christians should be excluded from the Jewish Christian table. This would have been to establish a Hindoo caste in the Christian Church. How James really stood, however, among parties, we have noted on Act 15:6.
Fearing them This body of deputies from James must have swept in upon Antioch with an overwhelming power thus to have overawed the senior apostle. It looked like a final defeat of Christian liberty. For, conquered here in its fortress at Antioch, where else could it raise its head?
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
ff
Gal 2:12 ff. Paul now relates the particulars of the occurrence.
] sent by James . It belongs to . Comp. Plat. Prot . p. 309 B, : Mat 26:47 ; Mar 5:35 ; 1Th 3:6 . Why they and, to judge from the impression made upon Peter, they were certainly men of importance, strict in their Jewish-Christian observances were sent to Antioch by James, we know not, any more than why Peter journeyed thither. [85] But the conjecture that they belonged to the of Gal 2:4 (Winer, Schott), conflicts directly with the fact , that they were sent by James: for at the apostolic conference the latter had nowise made common cause with the ; and therefore in sending any of them to Antioch he would have acted very unwisely, or would, with reactionary intent (so de Wette, whereby, however, the character of James is placed in a very awkward position, which is not to be supported by Act 21:18 ), have simply supplied new fuel to the scarcely settled controversy. Others (as Studer, Usteri, Zeller [86] ), connecting the words with , understand adherents of James (comp. and the like; Schaefer, Melet . p. 26 ff.; Bernhardy, p. 222), or, as Winer (comp. Wolf) says, “qui Jacobi auctoritate sive jure seu secus utebantur;” but this brings upon James the designation of a party-chief (some Jacobites!), which would be neither necessarily nor wisely introduced here, even supposing Winer’s modification to be mentally supplied. Lastly, the explanation of Beza, Grotius, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius (following Chrysostom), that means nothing more than from Jerusalem , because James was the president of the church there (comp. Koppe), is an unauthorized setting aside of the person, who is named expressly and not without due reason.
] he joined in meals with the Gentile Christians . Comp. on in this sense, Plat. Legg . ix. p. 881 D; Luk 15:2 ; 1Co 5:11 . Notice the imperfect . The Jew might not eat with Gentiles without incurring Levitical defilement (Act 11:3 ); but Peter, who previously by special revelation (Acts 10 f.), had been instructed as to the invalidity of this separation in Christianity, had in the apostolic conference defended Christian freedom (Act 15:7 ff.), and taken part in passing the decree that, as regards food, the Gentile brethren should only have to abstain from meat offered to idols, things strangled, and blood (Act 15:29 ). This decree was received and accepted with joy by the church at Antioch (Act 15:30 f.). It would therefore have been all the easier for Peter in Antioch to follow his divinely attained conviction, [87] and to take part without hesitation in the more familiar intercourse of meals with the Gentile Christians there free from any scruple that he should defile himself by Gentile food, which no legal enactments restricted except as to those three points. But to this free and correct standpoint the stricter Jewish Christians, who were still entangled in the observances of the Levitical precepts as to purity (comp. Act 21:20 ), had not been able to rise; and to this class belonged the (Gal 2:12 ). When, therefore, these peopled arrived from Jerusalem and from James, Peter unhappily no longer continued his previous liberal-minded conduct in Antioch, but drew back and separated himself from intercourse at meals with the Gentile Christians, whereby he gave a practical denial to his better conviction. How similar to his conduct in his former denial of the Lord! Calovius, however, justly, in conformity with the temperament of Peter, remarks, “ una haec fuit Petri actio , non habitus .”
.] By this are meant the Jewish Christians generally , as a class, so far as they were represented by those , who belonged to the stricter school. Peter feared the Jewish-Christian strictness, displeasure, disapprobation, etc. The explanatory gloss of Chrysostom ( , ; comp. Theophylact, ), which is followed by Piscator, Grotius, Estius, and others, favours Peter quite against the literal sense of the words (Mat 10:26 ; Mat 14:5 ; Mar 9:18 ; Luk 12:5 ; Act 5:26 ; Rom 13:3 ).
Observe also, on the one hand, the graphic force of the imperfects . and ., and, on the other hand, the expression of his own bad precedent, , which belongs not merely to ., but also to . (Polyb. vii. 17. 1, xi. 15. 2, i. 16. 10); he withdrew himself , etc., and thereby induced his Jewish-Christian associates also to enter on a like course (Gal 2:13 ). It is not, according to the context, correct that these imperfects express an enduring separation (Wieseler); the behaviour begins when the . have come; it excites the unfavourable judgment of the church, and Paul immediately places himself in decided opposition to Peter. The imperfects are therefore the usual adumbrativa; they place the withdrawal and separation of Peter, as it were, before the eyes of the readers. On the other hand, the . which follows is the wider action which took place and served further to challenge Paul; hence the aorist .
[85] The book of Acts is silent both on this point and also as to the whole scene between Peter and Paul, a silence indeed, which, according to Baur and Zeller, is supposed to be maintained intentionally, and in consistency with the false representation of the transactions in Jerusalem. According to Ritschl ( altkath. Kirche , p. 145), they were deputed by James to bring the relation between the Jewish and Gentile Christians back to the rule of the apostolic decree, as James understood it, that is, according to Ritschl, in the sense of a retractation of the Jewish-Christian defection from the law, and on behalf of restoring the separation between the two parties as respected their customs of eating. This assumed task of the is neither in any way intimated in the text, nor is there a trace of it in Acts (comp., on the contrary, Act 15:30 ff.). Just as little can it be proved that, as Ewald thinks, a decree had been passed in the church at Jerusalem that the Jewish Christian should refrain from eating in company with Gentile Christians (because he did not know whether blood or something strangled might be among their food), and that those had come to Antioch to make known this new decree. Hilgenfeld also assumes that those sent by James had some charge relating to withdrawal from the Gentile Christians. Comp. Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr . p. 357, in whose opinion they were sent after Peter, because his intercourse with the Gentiles had been notified at Jerusalem.
[86] So also Vmel, Br. a. d. Gal. mit deutsch. Uebers. u. krit. Anm ., Frankf. 1865, p. 29.
[87] That the Christian fellowship in meals included also the joint observance of the agapae (which Thiersch, Hilgenfeld, and others take to be meant), is obvious. It is not, however, expressly denoted by .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
12 .] These have been softened by some Commentators into persons who merely gave themselves out as from James (Winer, &c. and even Ellicott, edn. 2), or who merely came from Jerusalem where James presided (Beza, Grot., Olsh., &c.). But the candid reader will I think at once recognize in the words a mission from James (so Thl., c., Estius (doubtfully), Rckert, Meyer, De W.): and will find no difficulty in believing that that Apostle, even after the decision of the council regarding the Gentile converts, may have retained (characteristically, see his recommendatior to St. Paul, in Act 21:18 ff.) his strict view of the duties of Jewish converts, for that is perhaps all that the present passage requires. And this mission may have been for the very purpose of admonishing the Jewish converts of their obligations, from which the Gentiles were free. Thus we have no occasion to assume (with De W.) that James had in the council been over-persuaded by the earnestness and eloquence of Paul, and had afterwards undergone a reaction: for his course will be consistent throughout. And my view seems to me to be confirmed by his own words, Act 15:19 , where the emphatic tacitly implies, that the Jews would be bound as before.
] As he had done, Act 10 , on the prompting of a heavenly vision; and himself defended it, Act 11 . See below.
] as well as , governs : withdrew himself . So Polyb. i. 16. 10, , , and al. freq. The imperfects express that there were more cases than one where he did this it was the course he took.
] being afraid of . Chrys., to bear out his interpretation of the whole incident, says, , (witness his denial of his Lord), . , . . . And so Piscator, Grot., Estius, al. The whole incident is remarkably characteristic of Peter ever the first to recognize, and the first to draw back from, great principles and truths: see this very ably enlarged on in Jowett’s note on Gal 2:11 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Gal 2:12 . . Any visitors from the Church of Jerusalem might perhaps be said to come from James, who was its permanent head; but these brethren appear to have been in special sympathy with James in regard to their strict observance of the Law, and the respect paid by Peter to their opinion suggests that they were representative men, probably deputed for some purpose by their Church. There is, however, no reason to conclude that James prompted or approved the intrigue against Gentile freedom at Antioch. Scrupulous as he was about observing the Law, he had taken a leading part at Jerusalem in shaping the recent contract with their Gentile brethren, and was the last man to sanction an evasion of its terms.
The imperfect tenses , give a graphic picture of Peter’s irresolute and tentative efforts to withdraw gradually from an intercourse that gave offence to the visitors. . . The omission of before is conclusive against the rendering of our versions, them of the circumcision . For without an article does not denote the body of men, but the rite. By . are meant the party who based their faith on circumcision, and made that the charter of God’s covenant rather than baptism, and not the Jewish Christians in general. It is clear from the context that the Circumcision as a body did eat with their brethren until Peter set the example of withdrawal through fear of this determined minority of partisans. In Act 11:2 the phrase obviously singles out a particular party who pressed the claims of circumcision in an assembly consisting wholly of circumcised men. In Act 10:45 . distinguishes those who believed after circumcision from the uncircumcised who believed; and in Col 4:11 . designates those men who were my only fellow-workers after circumcision . (For the force of the elliptical phrase cf. Gal 3:7 ; Gal 3:9 , Rom 4:14 .)
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
before. Greek. pro. App-104.
certain. Greek. tines App-124.
from. Greek. apo. App-104.
eat with. Greek. sunesthio. See Act 10:41.
withdrew = began to withdraw, Greek. hupostello, See Act 20:20.
of. Greek. ek. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
12.] These have been softened by some Commentators into persons who merely gave themselves out as from James (Winer, &c. and even Ellicott, edn. 2), or who merely came from Jerusalem where James presided (Beza, Grot., Olsh., &c.). But the candid reader will I think at once recognize in the words a mission from James (so Thl., c., Estius (doubtfully), Rckert, Meyer, De W.): and will find no difficulty in believing that that Apostle, even after the decision of the council regarding the Gentile converts, may have retained (characteristically, see his recommendatior to St. Paul, in Act 21:18 ff.) his strict view of the duties of Jewish converts,-for that is perhaps all that the present passage requires. And this mission may have been for the very purpose of admonishing the Jewish converts of their obligations, from which the Gentiles were free. Thus we have no occasion to assume (with De W.) that James had in the council been over-persuaded by the earnestness and eloquence of Paul, and had afterwards undergone a reaction: for his course will be consistent throughout. And my view seems to me to be confirmed by his own words, Act 15:19, where the emphatic tacitly implies, that the Jews would be bound as before.
] As he had done, Acts 10, on the prompting of a heavenly vision; and himself defended it, Acts 11. See below.
] as well as , governs : withdrew himself. So Polyb. i. 16. 10, , , and al. freq. The imperfects express that there were more cases than one where he did this-it was the course he took.
] being afraid of. Chrys., to bear out his interpretation of the whole incident, says, , (witness his denial of his Lord), . , … And so Piscator, Grot., Estius, al. The whole incident is remarkably characteristic of Peter-ever the first to recognize, and the first to draw back from, great principles and truths: see this very ably enlarged on in Jowetts note on Gal 2:11.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Gal 2:12. ) He ate, like as we did, along with the Gentiles.-, he began to withdraw[11]) gradually.-, separated) entirely.-, fearing) The fear of man is very injurious.
[11] This is the force of the Imperfect-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Gal 2:12
Gal 2:12
For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles;-[The visit to which reference is made took place soon after the return of Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem, in the interval described in Acts 15; 35, shortly before the separation of Paul and Barnabas, and the departure of Paul on his second missionary journey.] While on this visit, with Paul and Barnabas, he ate with the Gentile brethren.
but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.-Some came from James at Jerusalem, stirred up the prejudice on the subject, and Peter withdrew from this association with the Gentiles, fearing the Jews. [It would be wrong to charge that James so instructed the men who came, for we are warned against this by the fact that the men from Jerusalem who stirred up the first strife in Antioch received no commandment at all. (Act 15:24).]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
certain: Gal 2:9, Act 21:18-25
he did: Act 10:28, Act 11:3, Eph 2:15, Eph 2:19-22, Eph 3:6
he withdrew: Isa 65:5, Luk 15:2, 1Th 5:22
fearing: Pro 29:25, Isa 57:11, Mat 26:69-75
Reciprocal: Gen 12:13 – thou Gen 20:2 – said 1Sa 21:2 – The king 2Ki 10:29 – made Israel Ecc 10:1 – a little Luk 5:38 – General Joh 7:13 – spake Act 10:15 – What Act 11:2 – they Act 12:17 – James Act 15:1 – certain Act 15:13 – James Act 21:24 – but Rom 14:2 – that 1Co 5:11 – or a drunkard 1Co 9:21 – them Gal 2:14 – If thou Gal 2:18 – General Col 2:16 – judge Jam 1:1 – James
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gal 2:12. -for before that certain from James came. What is the connection of the word with ?
1. The preposition seems to be used in no vague sense, as if they only came from James’ locality, or from Jerusalem, for they came from himself. Augustine, Beza, Olshausen, Schaff, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Brown incline to this view. But why name James, if locality only be alluded to? As easy, since has so often a local meaning, would it have been to write at once, from Jerusalem- .
2. Usteri, Winer, and Zeller connect with -certain dependants or followers of James, as in the phrase . Bernhardy, p. 222. Winer’s explanation of this conjecture is loose-qui Jacobi auctoritate utrum jure an secus usi fuerint. But this idiom is specially connected with names of places and abstract nouns (Ellicott), and James never appears as the head of a party. His name never seems to have been used as the watchword of any faction of Jacobites, like that of Paul, Cephas, and Apollos; and this probably because he was resident in Jerusalem where the church thought and felt so much at one with himself, whereas Peter must have constantly come into contact with persons of opposite sentiments, and preached to communities of divided opinion.
3. The inference seems to be well grounded that they were persons sent from James (De Wette, Meyer, Trana). Mat 26:47; Mar 5:35; Mar 14:43; , Plato, Protag. 309 B. It may, on the one hand, be too strong to affirm that they were formally sent by James on an express mission, though it may be fairly inferred that he knew of their coming, and that they appeared in Antioch with at least his sanction; but, on the other hand, it unduly softens the phrase to give it the meaning of persons who gave out themselves as from James (Winer, Ellicott). There is no warrant for Prof. Lightfoot’s supposition, that they came invested with some powers from James, which they abused. For there is no hint that they were the same very extreme party described in Act 15:24, a party which Peter would rather have resisted than succumbed to. Who those men were, or what their mission was, we know not. The narrative of Acts says nothing of the occurrence. But from the result one may infer, that they were sent to see as to the obedience of the church to the decrees. These decrees respected the Gentiles, and indeed they originated in a reference regarding their position. No additional burden was to be placed on them; but the believing Jews were expected to keep the customs, and not to mix freely with the Gentiles. Act 15:19. It may, therefore, have been suspected at Jerusalem that the Jewish believers, through intercourse with Gentile brethren, were relaxing, and were doing what Peter had begun to do at Antioch with increasing freedom; so that the business of this deputation may have been, to see that the circumcision did not presume on any licence in consequence of the opinion of the council. See Alford. Other purposes have been imagined for these certain from James, without any foundation. At all events, they could not be the false brethren already mentioned by Paul, nor those disowned by James in his address before the council, and in the apostolic circular. Nor could they be the bearers of the decrees, as Ritschl (Altkath. Kirche, p. 128) supposes, for these documents had been sent down at an earlier period. Before these certain came from James, we are told of Peter-
-he was eating with the Gentiles. As he had done before (Acts 10), and had defended the act at Jerusalem so nobly and conclusively, as is told in the following chapter (Acts 11). The charge at that time was ,-himself admitting to Cornelius that by Jewish ordinance such intercourse was . Compare Luk 15:1; 1Co 5:11. Some, as Olshausen and Matthies, widen the meaning of the phrase too much, as if it signified general social intercourse; and others, as Thiersch and Hilgenfeld, emphasize it too much, and refer it not to ordinary diet, but also to communion in the love-feasts and eucharist. Peter then had been acting according to conviction, and as the vision had long ago instructed him. But on the question of eating with Gentiles the council had said nothing, it only forbade certain articles of food; and the circular did not settle the general relation of converted Gentiles to the law, for it only spoke out against the necessity of circumcising them. But this last enactment releasing them from circumcision virtually declared them no longer common or unclean; and for a time at Antioch Peter thus understood it, so that his tergiversation was a violation in spirit at least of the decrees. There is no ground for Wieseler’s assumption, which is based on the late date which he assigns to this meeting at Antioch, that Peter’s conduct had reference simply to the articles of food forbidden by these decrees which in lapse of years had fallen into comparative desuetude, and that, in withdrawing from social intercourse with the Gentiles, he only obeyed them. The reproof of Paul on such a supposition would have been uncalled for and unjust; and for such a withdrawal, hypocrisy could not be laid to Peter’s charge. The certain from James seem to have insisted that the decision of the council was to be limited entirely to the points specified in it, and that it did not warrant such free intercourse with believing Gentiles as Peter had been practising. The believing Gentiles were, on that view, to be an inferior caste in the church.
, -but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself. The reading has B, D1, F, , two other MSS., and the Itala in its favour; but the plural form has preponderant authority. The singular , accepted by Lachmann, may have come from the following verse, from some reminiscence of the previous in Gal 2:11, or from some odd meaning attached to ; for Origen has , as if James himself had followed his . Contra Celsum, 2.1, p. 56, ed. Spencer. The two connected verbs represent Peter first as withdrawing himself, and then, as the fear grew, ultimately and formally separating himself. The imperfects show that not one act only, but the course which he was following is depicted as if placed before one’s eyes. Jelf, 401, 3.
-fearing, or inasmuch as he feared them of the circumcision-that is, Jews in blood, but Christians in creed, called in Act 21:20; Tit 1:10-11. The participle has a causal sense. Schmalfeld, 207, 3. Before the who had arrived at Antioch he quailed; and they certainly represented, though not by any formal commission, the creed and practice of the mother church (Wieseler). Peter might imagine that his position as the apostle of the circumcision was endangered. It would thus appear, that though he was the apostle of the circumcision, and might naturally be regarded as the head of that section of the church, there was an influence in it higher than his, and a power resident in Jerusalem of which he stood in awe. Chrysostom is anxious to show that his fear had no connection with himself, but was only anxiety about the disciples, his fear being parallel to that expressed by Paul in Gal 4:11; and Theophylact adds, that he was condemned wrongfully by men who did not know his motive. Somewhat similar opinions are held by Erasmus, Piscator, Grotius, and Dr. Brown, and most naturally by Baronius and Bellarmine.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Gal 2:12. Certain came from James. There is no definite information available as to whether these men were sent by James, or that Peter was merely intimidated by the fact that they came from the vicinity of that outstanding man, and would doubtless carry a report back to him of what they saw at Antioch. Did eat with the Gentiles. On the significance of eating with others, see the comments at 1Co 5:11. There was nothing actually wrong in eating with Gentiles, and Peter had done so before (Act 11:3); but his feeling for what he imagined was James’ exclusiveness on the matter, induced him to act in this inconsistent manner.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Gal 2:12. Certain persons from James, not simply members of his congregation at Jerusalem, out followers, and (as the word from seems to indicate ) delegates of James of Jerusalem (Gal 2:9), and invested with some authority, which they abused. We are not to understand by them false brethren (Gal 2:4), or heretical Jewish Christians who taught the necessity of the circumcision for all, and made use of the name of James without any authority from him; for Peter would not have permitted such men to influence his conduct. Yet they were strict and extremely conservative Jewish Christians who regarded themselves bound to observe the whole law of Moses, without requiring the same from the Gentile converts. This was the position which James himself took at the Council (Act 15:16-21), and to which he always adhered, as we may infer from his advice given to Paul (Act 21:20-25), and also from the accounts of tradition (especially Hegesippus, who represents him as a perfect Jewish saint). It would seem from this passage that, soon after the Council, James sent some esteemed brethren of his congregation to Antioch, not for the purpose of imposing the yoke of ceremonialism upon the Gentile Christians,for this would have been inconsistent with his speech at the Council and with the synodical letter,but for the purpose of reminding the Jewish Christians of their duty and recommending them to continue the observance of the divinely appointed and time-honored customs of their fathers which were by no means overthrown by the compromise measure adopted at the Council. It is unnecessary therefore to charge him with inconsistency. All we can say is that he stopped half way and never ventured so far as Paul, or even as Peter, who broke through the ceremonial restrictions of their native religion. Confining his labors to Jerusalem and the Jews, James regarded it as his duty to adhere as closely as possible to the old dispensation, in the vain hope of bringing over the nation as a whole to the Christian faith; while the Apostle of the Gentiles, on the contrary, owed it to his peculiar mission to maintain and defend the liberty of the gospel and the rights of the uncircumcised brethren.
Renan (St. Paul, ch. 10) asserts without proof that James deliberately organized a Jewish counter-mission and sent delegates to the Gentile churches for the purpose of undermining Pauls influence and demanding circumcision as a condition of church membership. This view is as wild as the heretical romance of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, and in flat contradiction with the public position and profession of James at the Council (Acts 15), and his conduct towards Paul, whom he recognized as a brother and fellow-Apostle according to Pauls own statement (Gal 2:9, comp. Gal 1:19). James was conservative and somewhat contracted, but not heretical.
He used to eat (the imperfect indicates the habit) together with the Gentiles, i.e., Gentile (uncircumcised) Christians. This is the best proof from the pen of Paul himself that Peter agreed with him in principle, and for a time even in practice. With his accustomed ardor Peter carried out his conviction which he had boldly professed in Jerusalem, and made common cause with the Gentile converts. The Pharisees reproved Christ for eating with sinners (Luk 15:2). The Jews were strictly forbidden to eat with unclean persons and idolaters. The Gentiles made no distinction between clean and unclean animals, and consumed without scruple the meat offered to idols and sold on the market. The Apostle probably refers here not only to the ordinary meals, but also to the primitive love feasts (agap) and the holy communion. A common participation of the Lords Supper was the completion and seal of Christian-fellowship and church union. We may say that it followed as a last consequence from the decree of the Apostolic Council, but it was not expressly enjoined, and the strict Jewish party thought it unsafe, for the present at least, to venture so far, contenting itself with a general recognition of the Gentile brethren, and keeping them at a respectful distance. James probably shared in this opinion, and may have considered Peter too hasty. The same scrupulous conservatism and exclusivism exists to this day in various shapes of close communism which refuses to sit at the Lords table with Christians of any other sect, on account of some difference of doctrine or polity or ceremonies.
He withdrew and separated himself. The words describe forcibly the cautious withdrawal of a timid person who shrinks from observation. Characteristic for Peter, who was the first to confess Christ, and the first to deny him; the first to recognize the rights of the Gentiles, and the first to disown them practically. His strength and weakness, his boldness and timidity are the two opposite manifestations of the same warm, impulsive and impressible temper. He was, like the Galatians, liable to sudden transitions from fever-heat to fever-chill (Macgregor). But he was always ready to confess his sins and to repent. And this redeeming feature makes one sympathize with him in his weakness. There was a great deal of human nature in him, but also a great deal of divine grace which triumphed at last. Blameworthy as he was for his inconsistency, he is still more praiseworthy for the humility with which he bore the sharp rebuke of a younger colleague, and lovingly commended the Epistles of brother Paul in which his own inconsistency is recorded (2Pe 3:15-16).
Fearing those of the circumcision, Jewish converts.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
A farther account is given us in these verses, of St. Peter’s offense at Antioch, in giving occasion of scandal to the Gentiles, by refusing to converse and eat with them, although he had before, in a vision, received a divine command so to do.
St. Paul calls it fear, Gal 2:12, dissimulation, Gal 2:13, and not walking uprightly, Gal 2:14.
He refused to converse with the believing Gentiles, being uncircumcised, for fear of offending the believing Jews, who were so tenacious of circumcision, and the ceremonial law.
Learn hence, what weakness and inconstancy is found with the best of men, especially when fear gets a prevailing power over them. St. Peter was the minister of the circumcision, in great honour and esteem with the believing Jews, but fearing the loss of his reputation among them, he falls into a sin against God.
Observe, 2. The fatal influence of that sin; it drew others into a partnership with him therein; Barnabas himself was led away with the dissimulation, and the other Jews dissembled with him.
Learn hence, that such as are eminent in the church, had need be exactly careful how they walk; for if they fall, they fall not alone, many do fall with them.
Observe, 3. With what openness and freedom, with what courage and resolution, St. Paul checks and reproves Peter, for his cowardice and timorousness, in refusing to converse with the believing Gentiles, for fear of gaining the displeasure of the circumcised Jews; I said unto Peter before them all, If thou being a Jew, livest, in thy ordinary conversation, after the manner of the Gentiles, why compellest thou the Gentiles, by thy example to live, as do the Jews:
Where note, what a constraining power there is in the example of eminent persons. He is said to compel in scripture, not only who doth violently force, but who, being of authority, doth provoke by his example. The errors of those that do rule, became rulers of error. Men sin through a kind of authority, through the sins of those who are in authority.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. [The Jews regarded it as unlawful to have social intercourse with, or to eat with, Gentiles; but Peter’s great vision, teaching the fact that God was no respecter of races or persons, bore especially on the social difference (Act 10:11-16). Peter, therefore, instructed by the vision, ate with the Gentiles, and defended his conduct in so doing (Act 11:3-4; Act 11:12). He therefore knew perfectly what was right and lawful in the matter, but, fearing those who came from James, he played the coward, being, as Alford says, “ever the first to recognize, and the first to draw back from great truths.” Peter, therefore, to avoid the censure of these Jerusalem critics, began to withdraw from the Gentiles, and finally to separate himself altogether. Such a withdrawal would mean that Peter could not take the communion with the Gentiles. The “certain” is contemptuous, and corresponds to the “some” of Gal 1:7 . It is not likely that James gave these men any authority for what they did. See his words at Act 15:19; and those of the decree, Act 15:24 . But James stood in high favor with the Jewish party, and hence, in his absence, would readily be quoted as sanctioning the teachings of that party.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 12
From James; who was at Jerusalem.–Then which were of the circumcision; that those who had come from Jerusalem.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
2:12 {2} For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
(2) Another most vehement proof of his apostleship, and also of that doctrine which he had delivered concerning free justification by faith alone. And it was for this doctrine alone that he reprehended Peter at Antioch, who offended in this, in that for the sake of a few Jews who came from Jerusalem, he played the Jew, and offended the Gentiles who had believed.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Peter ate with the Christians at Antioch, who were both Jews and Gentiles, until some Jewish visitors came from Jerusalem (cf. Act 10:28; Act 11:3). They were from the group that believed Gentiles needed to undergo circumcision before they could become Christians. They were not "from James" in the sense that James endorsed their views; he did not (Gal 2:9). Perhaps they came from the same church as James. When these men-Paul did not call them brethren-came, they intimidated Peter. He gradually separated from the Gentile Christians, evidently to avoid conflict. The other Jews living in Antioch followed Peter’s example, as did Barnabas. They were being hypocritical, saying one thing and doing another. Peter had a tendency to compromise his convictions when he was under pressure (cf. Mat 16:16-23; Mat 26:69-75; Mar 14:66-72; Luk 22:54-62; Joh 18:15-18; Joh 18:25-27).
"It is perhaps curious that nobody seems to have recalled that Jesus ate ’with publicans and sinners’, which can scarcely mean that he conformed to strict Jewish practice." [Note: Morris, p. 77. Cf. Mark 7:19.]