Paul Withstands Peter at Antioch (Galatians 2:11–14)

The circumstance that St. Paul mentions here was as follows: at one time, after the Apostolic Council, St. Peter came to Antioch when Barnabas and Apostle Paul were still there. The Church of Antioch consisted almost entirely of believing Gentiles, though there were also Jews in it, but in small numbers. St. Peter, taught by a revelation from on high not to despise the Gentiles and assured by experience that uncircumcision does not hinder the reception of the grace of the Holy Spirit and entry into the Church, wherein there is neither Jew nor Greek, but all are one in Christ Jesus and obligated to fraternal communion with one another—lived in Antioch among believing Christians from the Gentiles in complete communion, without observing the customary rules of the Jews regarding Gentiles, and ate with them, which zealous Jews never allowed and for which St. Peter had already been forced to justify himself in Jerusalem after baptizing Cornelius and dining in his house. But when certain believing Jews came to Antioch from Apostle James, he began to separate himself from the believing Gentiles and ceased his free communion with them, fearing those from the circumcision. The other Jewish Christians of Antioch joined him, so that even Barnabas was led away by their example. A division arose, scandalous and dangerous. St. Paul, noticing this, explained to St. Peter, and through him to all Jewish Christians, that they ought not act thus. What resulted from this explanation St. Paul does not say, but from St. Peter’s silence it can be concluded that all agreed with St. Paul, re-entered into communion with the believing Gentiles, and the peace of the Church was restored.—Truth triumphed—which was especially important for St. Paul to impress upon the Galatians.

Many find St. Peter’s action in this circumstance perplexing. Regarding it as an error or wavering of conviction in the chief Apostle, they naturally raise the question in their minds: how could this be? And to resolve it they construct various hypotheses. But one need only look at the matter in its natural significance according to the circumstances of that time, and the question will not arise and there will be no need to construct hypotheses to resolve it.

Why did St. Peter act thus? Not from error and not from wavering of conviction, but because he had to act this way and no other according to Apostolic conscience and convictions, which St. Paul also shared. Take the affairs of the Church at a higher level. In the first period of the preaching of the Gospel, which began in Jerusalem, the participation of Gentiles in it never occurred to anyone, although all the Apostles received the commandment to go and teach all nations the faith (Matt. 28:19). It was a particular wondrous direction from on high that prompted this. The instrument on the part of the Apostles was chosen to be St. Peter, and on the part of the Gentiles the devout Cornelius, as became known to all (Acts 10). By the vision of the sheet with animals descending from heaven with the command to slaughter and eat, it was indicated that one ought not to despise Gentiles and without hesitation receive them into the bosom of the Church as soon as they believe, and by the fact that the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and all who believed in his house, it was signified that for Gentiles to become children of God, born from God, there was no need to be circumcised beforehand, and consequently to fulfill all the Jewish ordinances thereafter. St. Peter understood all of this and afterward in Jerusalem boldly assured everyone that such directions from on high could not be disobeyed and that therefore Gentiles should be left free from the yoke of Jewish ordinances. But from this it followed that if for Gentiles receiving grace was not conditioned by circumcision, then it is also not conditioned by it for Jews. The holy Apostles and all the more prudent of the Jews understood this. But others, the weaker ones, could not understand it soon and held to the conviction that for salvation and grace both circumcision and Judaizing were necessary. St. Peter and the others, knowing from experience how difficult it was to depart from this conviction, decided to spare the weaker believers from the Jews, not insisting on renouncing Judaism from those Jews who had been accustomed to it from childhood, and left it to time, circumstances, and God’s grace to enlighten them and change their convictions. In this same spirit they themselves continued to keep to the former Jewish ordinances among the Jews and in other places; but, of course, under the firm condition that this would not harm the work of the faith and the progress of Gospel preaching. They decided to become all things to all, but so that all by any means might be saved (1 Cor. 9:22), or in other words: not seeking their own profit but that of others, that they might be saved. But as soon as from this—that is, from Judaizing or freedom from it—something harmful to the Gospel arose, they did not hesitate to renounce the bonds of the Law here, freedom there. In the actions of St. Paul this is expressed with tangible clarity.

From this very viewpoint one must regard St. Peter’s action in Antioch. When there appeared to be no need to bind himself by the bonds of Jewish ordinances, he lived freely with the believing Christians from the Gentiles. When he saw that this was necessary, he relinquished this freedom and bound himself by those bonds. What was this necessity? Not merely sparing the weakness of those who came from Jerusalem, but the peace and well-being of all the Churches gathered from the Jews. When they came, it lay before St. Peter to decide whether to continue to conduct himself freely as before or to become with these arrived Jews a Jew. He chose the latter, as he should have. He already knew how irritable the Judaizing Jews are and cannot view indifferently what seemed to them to be indulgence toward the Gentiles. By remaining as before in close association with the Gentiles, he would certainly have irritated these arrivals. This in itself would have been no great matter; but they, returning again to Jerusalem, would have spread their irritation everywhere, both throughout Judea and in Jerusalem itself. And divisions and disturbances would have arisen there which could not have remained without harmful consequences for God’s Church. Foreseeing this, on the basis of prior experiences, St. Peter had to begin again to live Judaically with these Jews. Only obvious harm to the believing Gentiles, which his conduct might produce, could have stopped him from this. But he could not foresee or perceive this. From pre-Christian history, Gentiles were already accustomed to separation from Jews; in Christianity there were yet no examples of how they would receive such a temporary separation. For Apostle Peter there was a choice between probable disturbance among the Jews and harm to the Gentiles which he could not even suppose—that is, there was no choice, but only one course of action lay before him, which he adopted.

St. Paul acted entirely similarly in other cases. Therefore here also, he, of course, saw nothing against which he ought to resist. He saw that Apostolic prudence required St. Peter to act thus; and he would have said nothing if this conduct of Peter had not made an unfavorable impression on the believing Antiochians, which St. Peter did not see but which only St. Paul could notice. As soon as this harm arose and was noticed, the course of events took quite a different turn. Then appeared obvious harm that demanded attention more than the supposed disturbance among the Jews. The duty to clarify this lay upon Apostle Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles: which he did. But in doing this, he could not openly reveal before all that hidden intention of St. Peter, but spoke as though St. Peter had actually made an error. St. Peter recognized the rightness of St. Paul’s words and expressed his agreement with him by his silence. If he had persisted in his position, he could be rebuked; but here he plainly saw that the law—to become all things to all, that by all means he might save some (1 Cor. 9:22)—bound him no longer to spare the Jews. And one might even suppose that he was very glad that St. Paul made such a speech. It could have exerted strong influence on the present zealots of Judaism and served to cool their zeal for Judaism and lead them to the simplicity of the Gospel. This supposition of St. Peter’s pleasure at St. Paul’s words arises in the mind of itself, so that the holy Fathers, our commentators, even admitted the prior agreement between St. Peter and Paul in the deliberate arrangement of the entire event with the aim of instructing Jewish Christians, both those present and all others, most effectively.

Here is the natural course of events! From it is evident that even Apostle Peter could not act otherwise as the Apostle to the Jews, and St. Paul could not remain silent as the Apostle to the Gentiles. Both of them came together in the one—as Apostles of the One Lord Who commanded to establish the Church from all nations. So that there remain no doubt of this, we present the views of the ancient commentators of the Church.

Here is the view of Blessed Jerome: “From the fact that Peter, before certain ones came from Jerusalem, ate with believing Christians from the Gentiles, it is clear that he had not forgotten the inspiration given to him from on high, that God despises no human being, provided he believes in Christ Jesus. But when he, for the sake of those who still thought that fulfilling the Law was necessary for salvation, began to avoid dining with Christian Gentiles and thereby induced the believing Gentiles in Antioch to submit to the yoke of the Law (for they did not know of St. Peter’s good intention, that he was doing so for the salvation of the Jews, but supposed that this was how it should be according to the sense of the Gospel)—then St. Paul, seeing that the grace of Christ was in danger, this experienced warrior of old—employed the are of battling for the truth, to correct Peter’s measure of wisdom, useful for the Jews (and which had turned out to be useless for the believing Gentiles), with a new measure of wisdom, which he placed in open opposition to Peter, in standing against him to his face, not revealing his hidden intention, so that by such opposition to Peter he might save the believing from the Gentiles (in the purity and unmixedness of Gospel faith). If someone thinks that St. Paul truly stood up against Peter (on account of Judaizing) and thus fearlessly rebuked him, will it not contradict this that Paul himself became a Jew to the Jews to gain the Jews, and that he himself will be found guilty of hypocrisy, when he shaved his head at Cenchreae (Acts 18:18), brought an offering in Jerusalem (Acts 21:26) and circumcised Timothy? Thus, if he himself, sent to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, did not find it unsuitable to say: ‘Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the Church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved’ (1 Cor. 10:32–33)—and did something contrary to Gospel freedom in order not to offend the Jews—then how could he truly rebuke Peter, Apostle of the circumcision, for this very thing, being himself convicted of doing it as Apostle to the Gentiles? But, as we have said, he stood up against Peter and the others to correct the observance of the Law, held with a particular hidden intention (which had turned out to be harmful to Christians from the Gentiles), by rebuke (made also with a particular intention) and thus both peoples were saved.”

Here are the words of St. Chrysostom: “After showing (above) his agreement and oneness of mind with the Apostles, he further found it necessary to mention also his discourse with Peter in Antioch, and therefore says: ‘When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face’ and so on. Many, without proper attention, reading these words of the Epistle, think that Paul condemns Peter’s hypocrisy by them. But this is unjust. One must not understand it this way. Here we will find the profound wisdom of both Peter and Paul for the benefit of their listeners.—Paul says this not against Peter; but with the same intention with which he said: ‘from those who seemed to be something, I received nothing,’ he also says this. However, so that we might no longer remain in doubt about this, it will not be superfluous to show the very reason for what is said. The Apostles, as I said above, allowed circumcision in Jerusalem, for it was impossible to suddenly withdraw from the Law; but when they came to Antioch, they no longer observed anything similar and treated the believing Gentiles indifferently; Peter acted thus at that time too. But when those who came from Jerusalem knew that he had acted otherwise there, he ceased to act as a Gentile, fearing to offend them, and changed the manner of his conduct for two reasons: to avoid leading believing Jews into scandal and to give Paul a seemly occasion for rebuke. Paul knew the intention for which Peter acted thus. But Paul rebukes, while Peter patiently bears the rebuke, so that the disciples, seeing the teacher’s silence when he is rebuked, might the more quickly be convinced to change their way of thinking. For if Paul had not taken this opportunity to exhort them to it, he would have accomplished nothing important; but now, having made such a strict rebuke, having sufficient cause for it, he produced much greater fear in Peter’s disciples. And if Peter, after hearing the rebuke, had begun to contradict, very easily another might have thought that they distort the structure of salvation; but now his silence at Paul’s rebuke struck great fear into the believing Jews. For this reason he so strongly opposed Peter. Look moreover at how cautiously he speaks, allowing those with understanding to perceive that his words were not an act of combat but of ministry and wise action. If they had truly been in disagreement with one another, certainly one would not have rebuked the other in the presence of disciples; otherwise they would have given them great scandal. But now this apparent disagreement was beneficial.”

Gal. 2:11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

“When.” When was this? After the Apostolic Council, when Barnabas was still with Apostle Paul. Most directly this falls on the time before the second Apostolic journey of St. Paul: for after that Barnabas is no longer seen with Apostle Paul. Consequently, this was soon after that Council, in the interval between it and the second journey of St. Paul. But was there time for this? There was. In Acts it is related that those sent with Apostle Paul and Barnabas, Judas and Silas, “remained there for some time” (cf. Acts 15:33). Then, when Judas returned to Jerusalem and Silas remained in Antioch, “Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord” (Acts 15:35). “After some days” Paul proposes to Barnabas to go again to preach. From this it is to be concluded that from the Council to this moment a considerable time had passed, during which St. Peter could also have come to Antioch. Others place this in the time after the second Apostolic journey of St. Paul, from which, having returned, he stayed in Antioch “for some time” (Acts 18:23). But in that case one would need to draw Barnabas there from Cyprus—an unnecessary supposition, which one can do without in the first view. However, it is not necessary to insist on the most exact determination of the time, because it cannot have an influence on the meaning of the account.

“I opposed him to his face”—either immediately, as soon as I noticed the scandal, or with firmness, without indulgence, not letting it pass because he was among the senior apostles, or the same as it says below: “before them all,”—that is, not deferring to speak of it privately. The good of the Church demanded this.

“because he stood condemned,” κατεγνωσμενος ην,—“was condemned”; which leads one to think that he was condemned not by Apostle Paul but by others—the Christians of Antioch from the Gentiles. “He did not say: was condemned by me, but: was condemned,—understanding condemnation from others. And if Paul himself had condemned him, he would not have feared to say so” (St. Chrysostom). “Not knowing the reason, some condemned him” (Blessed Theophylact). “Not condemned by Paul, who knew why Peter was acting thus, but by those who did not know this and thought that he was truly being hypocritical” (Ecumenius).

Why then was St. Peter condemned? Because previously he had dined with believing Christians from the Gentiles, but then withdrew from them.

Gal. 2:12–13 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing those from the circumcision. The rest of the Jews also joined him in this hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

Dining together is a sign of friendly intercourse in daily life, which presupposes agreement in all other matters. The same applies here. When St. Peter dined with Christian Gentiles, he thereby showed that there was no longer any partition wall between Jews and Gentiles in the Church of Christ. In the Church of Antioch itself the fellowship of Jews with Gentiles was established by St. Paul and Barnabas from the very beginning of its foundation. And St. Peter, coming there, acted entirely in that same spirit. But when certain ones from James came, he changed his manner of conduct—he had been in complete intercourse with the Gentiles, and now he began to avoid them and withdraw from them. What caused him to act thus? “Fearing those from the circumcision,” says St. Paul.

Was St. Peter afraid? On Pentecost before countless multitude he proclaimed boldly the new truth; then in the temple he proclaimed the same after the healing of the lame beggar; then after imprisonment, he did not fear to boldly instill faith in the Crucified before His very crucifiers themselves and said firmly, to the face of the entire Sanhedrin, which forbade preaching about the Lord: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge. For we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19–20). And now he was afraid? Before enemies he was not afraid; but here he was afraid before brothers, believers, who were merely devoted to the Law? He was afraid not with some ordinary human fear, but with the fear of Christ’s love; he was afraid lest these from the circumcision should fall away or, remaining in the faith, should stir up turmoil among all the Churches gathered from the Jews, presenting Peter before them as an open enemy of the Law, if he continued to be with the Gentiles as a Gentile even in their presence. “He was not afraid of subjecting himself to danger (for, having not been cowardly at first, how could he be cowardly now?), but of his disciples falling away, which Paul himself also feared. Thus, writing to the Galatians, he says: ‘I am afraid I have labored over you in vain’ (Gal. 4:11); and to the Corinthians: ‘But I fear lest, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your minds should be corrupted and led astray’ (2 Cor. 11:3). The fear of death meant nothing to them; but the fear of the perdition of disciples powerfully struck their souls” (St. Chrysostom).

The personality of those who came—neither that they were from James nor that they were perhaps influential among the Jews—had any influence on St. Peter’s concerns. He was not afraid of them, but was concerned for them, solely because they were from the circumcision, believing Jews who valued the Law and considered its observance, even along with faith in the Lord, to be a condition of salvation. That these from the circumcision came from James does not necessarily mean that they were sent by James: for we can say this of them if they came with James’s knowledge and even that they came from the place where James held prominence. And in no way can it be concluded that they were of the same spirit as James. For he, though living in Jerusalem among Jews and keeping all the requirements of the Law so strictly that even those devoted to the Law considered him holy, did not consider observance of the Law to be a condition of salvation. He was the first to cast a decisive vote for the freedom of Gentiles from the Law at the Council (Acts 15:13); and he, when St. Paul arrived in Jerusalem after his third Apostolic journey, advised him to observe certain ceremonial practices to soften the rumor that was circulating about him, that he despised the Law (Acts 21:18–26), thereby showing that he did not consider the observance of the Law to be a condition of salvation, but a temporary measure of wisdom to attract and keep the Jews in the faith. If those who came to Antioch had been of the same spirit, St. Peter would have had nothing to fear for them. But clearly, these were such as could not bear any indulgence toward the Gentiles, and St. Peter knew this, which is why he acted toward them so as not to provoke their zeal, which, as is known, when not guided by reason, begins to act noisily, disorderly, without regard for anything.

So Saint Peter began to withdraw from the Gentiles, with the aim of avoiding scandal to those who loved Judaism and of preserving peace in the churches. But the result was different. The first consequence was division in the Church at Antioch. The Jews, who through the exhortations of holy Paul had become united with the Gentiles in this church and who were swayed by Peter’s example, began now to separate themselves from them. “And the other Jews fell into the same hypocrisy with him,” says holy Paul. They did not know Peter’s intention and, merely imitating him, separated themselves from the Gentiles. But it could have come to their mind: is it truly not the case that we should keep ourselves apart from the Gentiles? This could not help but shake their previous conviction that the barrier that divided Jews and Gentiles had already been torn down. In this way the labors of the Apostle Paul were being made fruitless. He had one concern: to unite into one Church those from Jews and Gentiles, in which there would be no traces either of Judaism or of paganism, but in which Christianity alone would reign and all believers would live in one spirit in Christ Jesus. The Church at Antioch was exemplary in this regard, and to its formation he had devoted so much labor. And yet, before his very eyes, this dangerous division occurred in this church.

How painful it must have been for the Apostle Paul to see this, especially when Barnabas too fell into the hypocrisy of the others—this co-laborer of Paul, who worked with him in one spirit here and in other places, who together with him had planted not one church free from Judaism! At first glance, the action of holy Barnabas seems very difficult to understand. But there is nothing exceptional in it: he acted in the same spirit as holy Peter, and as Paul himself had done in other cases. He sided with holy Peter, not yet seeing how holy Paul would act, and not expecting any consequences harmful to the work of the Gospel. But holy Paul looked at this circumstance differently. He clearly saw the harm flowing from this manner of conduct to the well-being of the Church. Even the division alone was harmful. But beyond that, wavering might occur in the convictions of Christian Gentiles themselves. They might think: what is this, have we become rejected? But from this some might draw such a conclusion: if communion requires Judaizing, then we too are ready—while others might think: if communion requires Judaizing, but we will absolutely refuse to Judaize, then only one thing remains: to return to the old pagan beliefs. Holy Paul does not say that Peter’s action produced such an effect on Christian Gentiles; but the possibility of it is very probable. In any case, his action could not remain without some influence on them. Ambrosiaster holds that when holy Peter, previously having lived with Gentiles in a Gentile manner, suddenly began to shun them because of these zealots of the Law who had come, the Christian Gentiles were thereby thrown into confusion as to which manner of conduct was right. If righteousness required Judaizing, then he himself appears to be a violator of it when he lived with them in a Gentile manner. And if it were better or righteous to live simply as they did, then his now beginning to show them contempt was deeply disturbing to them.

However we interpret all this, it is clear that the well-intentioned action of holy Peter had a harmful effect on Christian society in Antioch. This is what moved holy Paul to clarify the truth and restore the order that had been disturbed.

Gal. 2:14. But when I saw that they were not acting rightly in accordance with the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: if you, being a Jew, live in a Gentile manner and not in a Jewish manner, how can you compel the Gentiles to live as Jews?

“When I saw.” He saw before all the others did; because it was easier for him to see this. If holy Peter had seen this harm himself, then certainly without any reminder he would have ceased to act as he considered beneficial to act; the others would have followed suit and the matter would have been settled by itself. But what did holy Paul see? That “they were not acting rightly in accordance with the truth of the Gospel.” The thought here is not that they were not living according to the Gospel, but that they were acting in such a way that their manner of conduct was proving unfavorable to the progress of the Gospel. Whoever wishes the Gospel to go forward and spread successfully will not act in this way. You are acting in such a manner that by this you are undermining the success of the Gospel. In this lies your wrongness. A sensible measure ceases to be sensible once it produces results entirely opposite to those expected.

“I said to Cephas.” Holy Paul addresses the Apostle Peter because from him the withdrawal from Gentiles had begun, and consequently, if he were to stop withdrawing from them, the others would stop as well. And for this reason too it could be done this way: if holy Paul had turned to the others, they might have thought that holy Peter was on their side and would have boldly resisted; but now, seeing that Peter is being rebuked and remaining silent, they too had to be silent and submit to holy Paul’s word. Saint Chrysostom writes that holy Paul turns to Peter so that those who believed from among the Jews might learn the truth from the rebuke given to him. For if Paul had directed his rebuke at the believers from among the Jews themselves, they would have rejected his rebuke with contempt and indignation, since they had not yet learned to respect him greatly. But now, seeing the silence of their teacher being rebuked, they could neither despise him nor contradict what he says.

He speaks to him “before them all,” because his action, which provoked the remark, was also committed before all, and especially because for all it was beneficial and necessary to hold in mind and in heart what he was about to say. “What he said before all was made necessary by the need for this rebuke to serve as a healing remedy for all. For it was not beneficial to repair a wrong that had plainly caused harm in secret” (Blessed Augustine). “He spoke before all in order to strike fear into those who heard” (Saint Chrysostom). “Just as those with healthy legs who make a show of limping do not actually have a defect in the legs but limp for some other reason, so too Peter, knowing that circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing, but rather the keeping of God’s commandments, had previously eaten with Christian Gentiles; but then for a time separated himself from them so as not to drive the Jews away from the faith. Therefore Paul opposes him in the same spirit and speaks before all, not in order to rebuke Peter, but so that those on whose account Peter played the hypocrite might be corrected, or to cut off the pride of the Jews and prevent the Gentiles from falling into despair” (Blessed Jerome).

“If you, being a Jew, live in a Gentile manner and not in a Jewish manner, how can you compel the Gentiles to live as Jews?” Holy Paul turns to what was before and takes this as the basis for his remark. Holy Peter, having grown up under the constraints of Jewish ordinances, upon entering into the fellowship of Christian Gentiles, gave himself complete freedom from these constraints, not observing the customary rules among Jews which determined their relations with Gentiles. Holy Paul speaks as if to say: to yourself, who were once in bondage, you gave freedom from Judaism, but the Gentiles, who did not know this bondage, you compel to Judaize. The essence of the rebuke is not that you became a Jew with the Jews, but that by this you compelled the Gentiles to Judaize. How? By your example, which had the force of persuasive speech and even of law in him. Seeing themselves separated and wishing to preserve fellowship with this highly esteemed person, they were ready to or were coming to the thought of submitting themselves to the yoke of the Law. Thus the convictions sown there by holy Paul among both Jews and Gentiles were being shaken, and the purity of Gospel truth was in danger of receiving an adulteration that would distort it.

I will adduce the paternal opinions on this matter, which interpret its significance eloquently. Blessed Augustine writes: “Peter was rebuked by Paul not because he observed Jewish customs, but because by this observance he was also compelling the Gentiles to do the same. In separating himself from the Gentiles to please those who considered the observance of Jewish ordinances necessary for salvation, he gave the appearance of considering it necessary to lay the yoke of lawful servitude upon the Gentiles as well. This is evident from the very words by which he is rebuked. For holy Paul does not say to him ‘why have you again returned to Jewish customs, you who, being a Jew, live in a Gentile manner?’ but rather ‘why do you compel the Gentiles to Judaize?’”—

Blessed Jerome expresses the same thought more fully: “He presses Peter with irrefutable proof, or rather, in Peter’s person, those who forced him into such contradictory actions. If, he says, you, Peter, who by nature are a Jew, circumcised in infancy and who observed all the precepts of the Law, now by the grace of Christ, knowing that all of this is nothing in itself but was merely a shadow of the good things to come, have begun to partake of food with believing Gentiles with complete freedom, without disturbance, how is it that by now withdrawing from them as if from the unclean, you compel them to Judaize? For if they are unclean, from whom you withdraw, and you withdraw because they are not circumcised, then by this you are forcing them to be circumcised and become Jews, while you yourself, though a Jew, live as a Gentile. Paul states as the reason for his rising up against Peter the fact that by his hypocrisy (well-intentioned though it was) he compelled the Gentiles to Judaize; for they were disposed to imitate him.”—

Saint Chrysostom directs attention to another aspect of the matter—namely, that holy Paul stands up for the Gentiles but has in view the correction of the Jews, and not directly them themselves but in the person of holy Peter. “What does holy Paul have in view in saying this? He wishes to make his rebuke more acceptable and bearable. For if he had said thus: you are acting badly by observing the Law, then the Jews would have accused him of audacity against their teacher. But now, accusing him for the sake of his students, he thereby made his speech more acceptable, and not only this, but also by leaving all the others and directing all his rebuke against the single Apostle Peter. ‘If you,’ he says, ‘being a Jew, live in a Gentile manner and not in a Jewish manner’—speaking almost as if to say: you imitate your teacher, and he himself, though a Jew, lives as a Gentile. But he did not say this openly, because they would not have accepted his counsel; instead he reveals Peter’s thought under the guise of a rebuke for the sake of the Gentiles. Also, if he had said: why do you compel those converted from Judaism to live again according to the Jewish manner? his words would have been far more intolerable; but now, as if taking the side of the Gentile disciples rather than those from among the Jews, by this very means he corrects the latter. For rebukes and reproaches are accepted more easily and quickly when they are not too harsh. Moreover, no one from the Gentiles could complain against Paul, because he was speaking against the Jews. And all of this Peter accomplished by his silence, taking upon himself the appearance of hypocrisy, so that he might free the Jews from actual hypocrisy.”—

Peter’s silence leads us to suppose that in response to holy Paul he harbored such thoughts: if so, if those believing Gentiles are indeed being scandalized and drawing from my action the conclusion that for salvation one must Judaize, then you are right, I should not act this way. I agree with you that this barrier—Judaism—should not exist among believers. The speech of holy Paul did not cause a rupture. Holy Peter saw the rightness of it and remained in good relations with holy Paul, as he himself testified (2 Pet. 3:15). The peaceful reception of Paul’s word shows that he was saying what was already in Peter’s own heart. And perhaps he was glad of the opportunity for such an eloquent admonition to those zealots, with whom in Jerusalem it was very difficult to speak and deal. Blessed Theodoret writes: “The great Peter confirms Paul’s words by his silence, as if speaking thus to the believers from among the Jews who were present with the Apostles: Paul is right in rebuking me, and it is impossible even to contradict his words. And that Peter, having in view the benefit of those listening, was satisfied with Paul’s words—this is manifest to everyone. Thus, inasmuch as one rebuked while the other received this in silence, there was thereby prepared a remedy beneficial for both those who believed from among the Jews and those from among the Gentiles. The Divine Apostle wrote these things to the Galatians, thus making known to them that the great and first Apostles, on account of the weakness of the Jews, sometimes allowed the Law to be observed, but did not always act in this way.”

Saint John of Damascus clarifies the relation of this incident to the Galatians, showing how the reminder of it corresponds to the purposes of the Epistle. “Through this circumstance, holy Paul teaches the Galatians in passing to accept the rebuke directed at them as well with a gentle and patient heart. For if Peter, being from the Jews, underwent rebuke because he was disposing others to Judaize, accepted this rebuke peacefully as a fitting and good thing, then all the more should the Galatians, being from the Gentiles and having been inclined after their belief in Christ to submit to the yoke of the Law, being rebuked for this, accept this rebuke with a gentle and patient heart.”

“How lovingly did holy Peter receive this rebuke for the salvation of Christ’s flock!” says Augustine. “The one who was rebuked was more wonderful than the one who rebuked. Here is an example worthy of imitation—an example of humility, which is the highest Christian virtue. It is by this above all that mutual love is preserved, and nothing destroys it more quickly than pride.”