[Gal 2:11 NASB] (11) But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

[Gal 2:11 MGNT] (11) ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν

Is this a reference to a Jewish procedure of some kind ala habeus corpus?

Might this have been an indicator that he intended to "bring to the Gathering" the issue per Matthew 18?:

[Mat 18:15-20 NASB] (15) "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. (16) "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. (17) "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (18) "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (19) "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. (20) "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."

  • The connection to Matthew is unclear to me. What do you mean by that? Aug 12 '19 at 13:54
  • 1
    I added the passage to which I was referring to the post. Thanks for the feedback.
    – Ruminator
    Aug 12 '19 at 13:58
  • You could always oppose people behind their backs, if you want to; it's just not particularly nice.
    – Lucian
    Aug 13 '19 at 23:21

It seems to be the other way around.

What gets illustrated in Matthew is the first century ethical or societal norm approach to addressing conflict.

First try to solve this in private, if that fails, then go public.

What we have on display in the text of Galatians leaves out the first step. It escalates immediately to personal and public dispute.

That may be just incompleteness of the narrative or a factual thing. In case of the latter this is bold speech, or Parrhesia, and an affront against Peter and Barnabas

In the value system of first-century society Paul's behavior counts as an insult against Peter […].The common pattern would have been for Paul to approach Peter in private, and confront him with the problems he had with Peter's behavior. The fact that Paul did not do this, but spoke out in public must have caused quite a stir in Antioch.
–– Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte: "Introduction", in: Peter-Ben Smit, Eva van Urk (Eds.): "Parrhesia. Ancient and Modern Perspectives on Freedom of Speech", Studies in Theology and Religion, Volume: 25, Brill: leiden, Boston, 2018.

that very well may have contributed to the intensity of the conflict. But our account is one-sided and incomplete in any way.

–– Nicholas Hugh Taylor: "Paul, Antioch, and Jerusalem: a study in relationships and authority in earliest Christianity", Dissertation, Durham University, 1990. (online) (esp p120–127)

–– John T. Fitzgerald (Ed): "Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech. Studies in the New Testament World", Brill: Leiden, Boston, 1996.

–– David Konstan, Diskin Clay, Clarence E. Glad, Johan C. Thorn, and James Ware: "Philodemus On Frank Criticism", Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations, Scholars Press Atlanta, Georgia, 1998.

  • Thank you for teaching me a brilliant new word: "parrhesia". "...It implies not only freedom of speech, but the obligation to speak the truth for the common good, even at personal risk...". I can relate to that. It's so Bernie Sanders, bulldog teeth and all. What evidence can you provide that the procedure of Matthew 18 was the norm of the day (before Matthew)? That doesn't sound likely to me. Thanks again.
    – Ruminator
    Aug 13 '19 at 12:27
  • @Ruminator For one Matthew is one such evidence for 'proper behaviour' ('how to escalate'?). Many Greek sources, like Plutarch come to mind. The links should also help you out. (And I for one think this is really timeless advice?) Aug 13 '19 at 12:45
  • Well in the absence of a particular source may I ask you to remove that assertion? Or at least qualify it? Thanks.
    – Ruminator
    Aug 13 '19 at 12:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.