46 DEBBIE HUNN offers the acceptance extended to him by the pillar apostles as evidence. It was not Paul who sought status among the apostles at the Council but the apostles who took note of him (vv. 7-9) 53. And neither compromised. 3. Peter at Antioch: Galatians 2,11-21 In 2,11-21 Paul gives a second example of his determination to withstand a threat to the gospel. This time Peter comes to Antioch and, because of his fear of the people from James, withdraws from the table of the Gentile Christians. The other Jewish Christians, including Barnabas, follow him. Paul recognizes this as a move away from the gospel and publicly rebukes Peter for living like a Gentile while compelling the Gentiles to Judaize. For the purposes of this paper, the event itself needs little explanation except perhaps to say that Peter’s walk away from the gospel was indirect and unwitting ; otherwise it would not have taken a Paul to recognize it, and Barnabas would not likely have been beguiled by it. Peter was not saying that Gentiles must follow Jewish food laws to be saved. He returned to the law, not for justification — he and Paul still agreed about that (2,16) — but for daily living before God 54. Paul shows in 2,15-21 the inconsistency of this position because justification without the law (2,16) implies living to God without the law as well (2,19). How exactly does Paul use the incident at Antioch in his argument that his gospel is true (per 1,6-12)? Peter’s unintentional turn from the gospel still posed a threat to it (cf. 1,6-9), and Paul’s indifference to remaining in anyone’s good graces in this instance (cf. 1,10) goes without saying. Here the challenge to the gospel is It was James, Peter, and John who saw that the gospel was committed to 53 Paul (v. 7.9) and who extended the right hand of fellowship to him and Barnabas (v. 9). In other words, they took the initiative, not Paul. Paul walks a fine line in 2,1-10 because his new status among the apostles could be misconstrued as a sell-out: Paul changed his gospel for a position among the apostles. Of course 2,11-14 should put such speculation to rest. Contra P.J. ACHTEMEIER, “An Elusive Unity: Paul, Acts, and the Early 54 Church ”, CBQ 48 (1986) 19; DUNN, Galatians, 114-116. Therefore, also, Peter’s behavior need not place this event before the Jerusalem Council, contra LUEDEMANN, Apostle to Gentiles, 75. MATERA, Galatians, 88, also considers this possible.