32 DEBBIE HUNN did not matter who these apostles were — in God’s sight or Paul’s? As in the first view, if it mattered that the apostles affirm Paul’s work, it mattered who they were. Verse 6 would undercut the very case Paul made. One aspect of Paul’s character that does distinguish him from his opponents is that he no longer strives to please people but God (1,10 ; 6,12). According to the paradigm view, the power of the gospel wrought this change in Paul, and he encourages the Galatians to follow his example 27. Does this mean, then, that the gospel affected the other apostles in the same way 28 ? If so, it seems odd that in chap. 1 Paul avoids encountering them, men who were also changed by the power of the gospel. If not, it says little for Paul’s point if the leaders of the movement were themselves unaffected by the power Paul argues it had. Paul’s narrative in 2,11-14 tells against the paradigm view as well. In Antioch, Peter still agreed with Paul about the gospel (2,16) 29. Paul, however, accused him of walking away from the truth of the gospel by refusing to eat any longer with the Gentiles (2,14). In other words, Peter’s departure from the gospel was behavioral, not doctrinal or intellectual — he still knew it was Christ who justifies, and who justifies without the law. But if Paul is attempting E.g., GAVENTA, “Autobiography as Paradigm”, 314. 27 Some scholars question whether Paul and the Jerusalem apostles taught 28 the same gospel. Although GAVENTA, “Autobiography as Paradigm”, 319, reads 1,6-9 as a statement that there is only one gospel, LYONS, Pauline Autobiography, 128, reads it as a denial only of another gospel for the Galatians. And although SCHÜTZ, Apostolic Authority, 149, sees Paul opposing circumcision as part of the one gospel. J. LAMBRECHT, “Unity and Diversity in Gal 1–2 ”, Unite et Diversite dans l’Église (ed. H. CAZELLES) (Teologia e Filosofia 15 ; Vatican City 1989) 131, finds two gospels in 2,7-10 where Paul’s has dropped some of the legal requirements of Jerusalem’s. But both Jew and Gentile were justified by faith apart from works of the law (2,15-16); and Peter, if he were justified by a gospel that included keeping the law, would have been faulted in 2,11-14 for joining the Gentile table not for leaving it. The law was temporary (3,19) and not a part of the gospel (3,25). SCHÜTZ, Apostolic Authority, 155, also correctly points out that the unity of the church depends upon the singularity of the gospel. Even Paul’s dealings with Peter in Antioch demonstrate this. Contra G. HOWARD, Paul : Crisis in Galatia. A Study in Early Christian 29 Theology (SNTSMS 35 ; Cambridge – New York 21990) 24. Most exegetes, however, understand Peter and Paul to be at odds over practice, not doctrine.