Paul vs. Peter, or the Bishop of Rome Fallible After All

By S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. *

An Exposition of Galatians 2:11–14 [1]

Introduction

“Eternal vigilance,” Wendell Phillips said at an anti-slavery meeting in Massachusetts over a hundred years ago, “is the price of liberty.” We can hardly doubt the truth of the sentiment, not only in politics and statesmanship, but also in the domain of spiritual truth. The Apostle Paul, addressing the Ephesian elders and warning them of the coming of wolves into the flock of God, as well as the rise of false teachers from the midst of the body, exhorted the elders, “Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears” (Acts 20:31). To the Corinthians he said, “Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong” (1 Cor. 16:13). To the Galatians he wrote, “Keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). Peter, too, speaks in the same tone, “Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). Vigilance is the price of liberty.

It is not easy, however, to be vigilant in the area of truth, for the truth is not always pleasant to its violators. “Do not be angry with me if I tell you the truth,” Socrates said, according to Plato’s Apology. In the epistle we are studying Paul plaintively asks the Galatians, “Have I therefore become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (4:16).

We shall see these principles illustrated in the section of Galatians to which we have now come. The Pauline churches of Asia Minor had become infiltrated by Judaizers, claiming connections with Jerusalem and demanding circumcision as a necessity for salvation (cf. 1:7; 2:4, 11–12; 3:10; 4:17; 5:2, 7, 10;. 6:12, 17). While they agreed with the facts of the gospel as Paul preached it, they disagreed with him over the terms by which the benefits of Christ’s saving work became ours. They wished to say, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be circumcised in order to be saved.” The tendency to destroy the grace principle by the addition of terms that reintroduce the works principle is a constant peril that faces the church. A continuing battle has been fought over it from the early days of the church’s existence.

Paul’s defense takes a threefold form. He defends himself first (cf. 1:1–2:21), then his understanding of the gospel of grace (cf. 3:1–4:31), and, finally, the ethical implications of the truths (cf. 5:1–6:18). The defense of himself is the first line of his fortifications, because the establishment of his divine apostleship and message gives validity to all that he preaches. To put his defense into a basic proposition, the apostle claims: My apostleship is from God (1:1), and my gospel has come to me by divine revelation (1:11–12).

After affirming the divine source of his gift and message, Paul has presented the evidence for his position. His life before his conversion, at his conversion, and after his conversion has confirmed the proposition (cf. 1:12–24). Then, in the opening verses of chapter two he turned the attention of his readers to his famine-relief visit to Jerusalem and showed that it was not an act of submission to the Twelve, as the Judaizers may have interpreted it, but the occasion for an acknowledgment of his superiority among the Gentiles by Peter, James, and John, the pillar apostles of Jerusalem.

Further support for the proposition is found in Galatians 2:11–14, for in this incident further evidence of his independence of all human authority is drawn from his resistance to Peter’s change of conduct at Antioch. The great lesson of the incident, aside from its demonstration of the apostle’s independence from Jerusalem, is that, while it had become generally recognized that Gentiles were not required to keep the Law, Jewish Christians must not obey its ceremonial statutes when such obedience appears to demand that the Gentiles do the same. In other words, any form of conduct that seems to suggest that the Gentiles must keep the Mosaic Law is wrong. There can be no compromise of the freedom won for all by our Lord at the cross. “In no way,” Burton concludes, “could he more effectively have affirmed his independence as a Christian apostle of all human authority.” [2]

The Circumstances of the Controversy

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

The event to which we now direct our attention is surely one of the most dramatic episodes of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul faces the Apostle Peter in a tense confrontation over the doctrine of the New Testament. The last apostle “braces” the apostle who was generally acknowledged to be primus inter pares (“first among equals”) among the apostles.

The scene of the conflict is Antioch, the chief city of Syria. The two participants are each apostles, mighty men of God (cf. vv. 7–8), both commissioned by our Lord Himself, and both honored men in the churches of Christ. In fact, the Book of Acts is practically the story of the ministry of these two men, being virtually divided in half by the accounts of their ministries. [3]

The event was occasioned by a visit of Peter to Antioch, the details of which are unknown to us. While there, Peter had joined himself to the community of believers and had been living in happy fellowship with them. Soon, however, certain men came from Jerusalem as the representatives of James and the church there. At their coming Peter withdrew from his close relationship with the believers in Antioch due to fear of the men from James. The church, thus, became a divided church, and it was likely that the Apostle Paul, returning from an absence from Antioch for some reason, appeared on the scene at this point. It is difficult to believe that Paul would have stood idly by, if he had been there, while Peter changed his course of action toward the Gentile believers.

We shall assume that the event occurred before the Jerusalem conference, for Peter’s actions would be difficult to harmonize with that later account if it occurred after the Jerusalem meeting.

The opening words of verse eleven, “But when Cephas [i.e., Peter] came to Antioch,” set the scene. Everything arose out of the big fisherman’s visit to the city.

The Controversy Between the Apostles

The Actions of Peter, 2:12–13

For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

The confrontation concerned the rather complicated food laws of the Old Testament. Now there was no express commandment in the Old Testament that Jews could not eat with Gentiles, but since the Gentiles did not observe the food laws of the Old Testament, the chances were considerably greater that, in eating with Gentiles, these laws would be violated. As a result it became an unwritten law that the Jews not eat with the Gentiles. It was, in other words, a tradition, not a commandment of the Lord.

The “for” (γάρ) of verse twelve introduces the reason for Peter’s condemnation. He had been eating with the Gentiles before the men from Jerusalem came. The verb συνήσθιεν (synēsthien, “he used to eat”) is in the imperfect tense, implying that he did this repeatedly, or customarily. It was his practice.

When the emissaries from James and Jerusalem came, however, things changed. The description of Peter’s actions is vivid. It is said first that he “withdrew” (KJV) himself from the Gentiles, the verb ὑπέστελλεν (hypestellen) is again an imperfect, here an inceptive imperfect, which might be rendered, “he began to withdraw” (NASB). The word was often used of the furling of sails, an action which he as a fisherman had often performed. [4] It was also used of a military withdrawal in Polybius. [5] Thus, Peter’s action was a cautious withdrawal from Gentile fellowship, like an army’s retreat to new positions, or like the furling of the sails of a boat. He began to withdraw and “hold himself aloof” (αφώριζεν, aphōrizen, also an imperfect) from fear. Arising out of the fear was also an attitude of hypocrisy, as the next verse indicates.

“The fear of man brings a snare,” the author of the Proverbs wrote, “but he who trusts in the Lord will be exalted” (29:25). The “craven fear of a small pressure group” [6] may affect even apostles!

The last clause of verse twelve gives the reason for the apostle’s actions, “fearing the party of the circumcision.” The participle “fearing” is causal in nuance (“because he was fearing the party of the circumcision”). Imagine it! The future “pope” a fallible weathercock! Why? Well, he might not be invited next year to the annual Apostles Bible Conference in Jerusalem!

We are not to think that Peter had changed his mind about the relations of Jews and Gentiles in the one body. A short while before this, according to Acts ten and eleven, he had received from the Lord a very direct revelation that there was no longer a difference between the Jews and Gentiles in the matter of foods. He had been told three times for emphasis, after he saw the vision of the sheet let down from heaven that contained the mixture of unclean creatures, “Arise, Peter, kill and eat!” (Acts 10:13). When he began his message to Cornelius and his house, Peter said, “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality” (cf. v. 34). Peter had not forgotten the vision and the visit to the Gentile centurion’s house (cf. Acts 15:7). Peter was simply playing the hypocrite because of fear. “The same Peter who had denied his Lord for fear of a maidservant now denied Him again for fear of the circumcision party. He still believed the gospel, but he failed to practice it,” Stott points out. [7]

There is an important lesson here, as well as solemn cause for distrust of the human heart, our human heart. Even the new life (for Peter possessed it) and a new relation to the Spirit (for Peter was now indwelt by Him) are no guarantee against falling. The knowledge of doctrine is no guarantee either (cf. Acts 11:2–3). Oh! How important it is that we cling constantly to Him who alone can guard us from stumbling!

The Actions of Others, 2:13

The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

The action of Peter is identified here as hypocrisy. The word translated, “played the hypocrite” (NKJV, συνυπεκρίθησαν, synhypekrithēsan), [8] is a double compound word. The compound verb from which it is derived meant literally to answer from under, i.e., from under a mask, as an actor did. The figure is derived from the stage. The actor was playing a part and often wore a mask. Thus, hypocrisy is play-acting, the playing of the part of another. Rochefoucauld once said, “L’hypocrisie est un hommage que le vice rend a la vertu,” or “Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” Only God and men who speak by inspiration can infallibly discern hypocrisy. Paul was guided by the Spirit in his judgment, and he saw that Peter’s convictions had not changed. He had simply been overcome by craven fear. The “Bishop of Rome” (for which, of course, there is no evidence whatsoever, Pontifex Maximus being a title borrowed from heathen priests) was indeed a fallible servant; in fact, a hypocrite.

Even Barnabas was affected, which may illustrate an important point. Barnabas was a man with a very loving nature (cf. Acts 4:36–37; 11:22–26, etc.), a man of consolation. This incident shows the weakness of a love that is not strengthened by the steel of theological firmness. Love may, for fear of grieving fellow-believers, melt into compromise and evasive straddling of the fence. But love, if it is not love in the truth, often becomes a cop-out. I wonder if this was not one of the elements that led to the breach between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark later on (cf. Acts 15:39)?

We notice another thing here: Our failures affect others. Peter’s acts affected the rest of the Jews in Antioch and, finally, Barnabas as well. “Their dissimulation,” Lightfoot says, “was as a flood which swept every thing away with it.” [9] Everything, that is, except for one man—Paul. We now see how important, humanly speaking, Paul was for the future of the Christian church. If Paul had not stood for the truth of the grace of God at this time, the church would have been hopelessly entangled in legalisms, or divided into two bodies: one Gentile in character, and the other Jewish. There would have been “one Lord, but two tables,” as one writer has put it. [10]

The Action of Paul, 2:11

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

In the opening verse of the section Paul writes that he “opposed” Peter to his face, “because he stood condemned.” The Greek word translated, “opposed” (ἀντέστην, antestēn) means stood up to, or, as they say out in the western part of the United States, he “braced” him. The word itself suggests that in Paul’s mind it was Peter who had taken the initiative in aggressive activity. It was Paul who opposed him. For Peter to begin to withdraw was an aggressive act, an assault on the gospel that Paul had been preaching.

Paul withstood Peter because he “was to be blamed” (KJV). The syntax and the sense of the verb support the NASB reading, “he stood condemned” (κατεγνωσμένος ἦν, kategnōsmenos ēn). Peter’s own actions had proclaimed his condemnation. He had acted against his conscience and against the revelation given him at an earlier time (cf. Acts 10, 11).

Was Paul “unloving”? No, he was loving in his rebuke of the other apostle. If he had not acted quickly and decisively, damage would have occurred among the churches, and to Peter also.

The Conclusion of the Matter, 2:14

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Why did the apostle do what he did? He says in verse fourteen that it was for “the truth of the gospel.”

Paul, then, was not simply an irascible old man, a temperamental theologian who loved to split doctrinal hairs because he loved a technical argument. He saw that the chief article of the faith was at stake here, that is, the basis of a man’s relationship to God.

Paul says that Peter by his action was not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel. How was this so? To withdraw from fellowship with Gentiles was the same as saying that the Jews had something that the Gentiles did not have. They could only get it by being circumcised and observing the Jewish Law. But if God justifies Gentiles and Jews on the same terms, then to withhold fellowship is to impose a condition upon the Gentiles that God does not impose upon them. If God has accepted the Gentiles as Peter had already affirmed, how can he reject them? To reject them is to reject God’s plan of salvation. It is to rise up in rebellion against the doctrine that our standing before God rests solely upon our relationship to Christ in faith. Peter’s actions were not so radical as the Judaizers, for the latter demanded the practice of circumcision and the observance of the food laws. Peter’s action only touched the food laws, but the principle was the same.

There is a final point here. The apostle says that Peter’s action was one that involved the coercion of the Gentiles to live as do the Jews. In other words, his actions involved the forcing of Jewish practices upon the Gentile Christians. It was either conformity to the Jewish practice regarding foods, or division of the church into Jewish and Gentile elements. This element of coercion concerned Paul. The question of liberty was raised. There was nothing wrong in the observance of Jewish laws. A Christian is free to do this, or not to do it. But if the observance is forced upon others, then it becomes intolerable bondage, bondage done away with in the cross of Christ. The freedom of the Gentiles takes precedence over the permitted observance of the Law when the two come into conflict. Or, to put it in other words, the freedom of the Gentiles must be preserved even if the Jews must abandon their practice of the ceremonial law. [11] Grace takes precedence over legalism, even over that observance of legalistic commandments in a voluntary manner (cf. 1 Cor. 9:20).

Finally, let us not forget that, while Paul had fought a battle of great significance in Antioch, the reason that he introduced the account here was to declare his independence again of Jerusalem and her apostles. At Antioch he made it plain by his rebuke of Peter that he stood upon his own status as an apostle of Christ.

Conclusion

In the first place, we notice that it is not enough to believe the gospel (cf. v. 16), nor to strive to preserve it. We must apply it. This Peter failed to do and fell into the danger of compromising the message.

Second, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty in the area of spiritual truth, as in the area of other endeavors. We are indebted to the Pauls, the Athanasiuses, and the Luthers. They have under God stood against the tide for the truth of the gospel, refusing to be stampeded by the herd. May the Lord give us some of their spirit.

Finally, it is possible in actions that appear to be incidental to compromise the principle of the gospel, the principle of grace. In such matters and in such situations we must stand our ground, holding firm to the sole sufficiency of Christ’s saving work in grace which is received by faith alone.

* Lewis Johnson regularly ministered the Word at Believers Chapel in Dallas for more than thirty years. During his academic career he held professorships in New Testament and systematic theology at Dallas Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He is currently Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Dallas Seminary.

Notes

1. This is article five in a sixteen-part series, “Expositional Studies in the Epistle to the Galatians.”
2. Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), 102.
3. Cf. John R. W. Stott, Only One Way: The Message of Galatians (London: Inter Varsity, 1968), 49–50.
4. LSJGL, s.v. “ὑποστέλλω,” 1895.
5. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “ὑποστέλλω,” TDNT, 7:597–98.
6. Stott, Only One Way: The Message of Galatians, 52.
7. Stott, Only One Way: The Message of Galatians, 52.
8. The NASB reads, “joined him in hypocrisy.”
9. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (1865; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 113.
10. Stephen C. Neill, Paul to the Galatians (London: United Society for Christian Literature, 1958), 32.
11. Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, 113–14.