Galatians 2:11Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Likewise on the mountain he alone appears as the one who speaks. When the Lord was speaking about the Cross and all the others were silent, he alone said, “Be merciful to Yourself” (Mt 16:22).

Although these words were not the fruit of mature judgment, they still came from burning love. Everywhere we see him more zealous than the others and going before them in dangers.

When the Lord appeared to the disciples on the shore, the others were hastening to the shore in the boat. Peter could not wait until the boat reached land.

After the Lord’s resurrection, when the Jews breathed murder and raged, seeking to destroy the disciples, Peter first came forward, dared to raise his voice, and said that the Crucified had risen and was in heaven.

Yet it is not the same thing to open locked doors and begin a work, and then to continue what has begun with the same boldness.

How, then, could it happen that one who had given his soul into the hands of so great a multitude would later dissemble?

He endured scourging and chains and would not agree to yield his boldness in the least. He did this at the very beginning of the preaching, in the center of the capital, where such great danger threatened him.

How could such a man fear those who had believed from the Jews, after so long a time and in Antioch, where there was no danger? This was after he had already acquired great glory and confirmed it by such deeds.

He did not fear the Jews themselves, even at the beginning and in their capital. How, after so much time and while in a foreign city, would he fear those who had separated from the Jews?

Therefore Paul does not speak against Peter. He speaks with the same intention with which he said, “But from those who seemed to be something, whatever they once were, it makes no difference to me.”

Still, lest we remain longer in doubt about this, it is necessary to reveal the reason for what was said.

As I said above, the Apostles permitted circumcision in Jerusalem, since it was impossible suddenly to draw them away from the Law. But when they came to Antioch, they no longer observed anything of the kind.

They lived in the same manner as believers from the Gentiles. Without doubt Peter was then acting in this way. But when those came from Jerusalem who knew that he had preached differently there, he ceased to live as a Gentile.

He did this because he feared offending them, and he changed his manner of life with two aims in view: not to scandalize the believers from the Jews, and to give Paul a plausible occasion for rebuke.

If the one who had preached in Jerusalem without rejecting circumcision had changed his mind in Antioch, the believers from the Jews would have thought that he acted thus out of fear of Paul.

The disciples would have condemned him for extreme fickleness, and this could have become no small scandal. Yet by his change he would not have aroused such suspicion in Paul.

Paul knew everything clearly and also knew the intention with which Peter acted. For this reason Paul rebukes, and Peter bears it, so that the disciples, seeing the teacher silent despite the reproof given him, might more easily change their own mind.

If Paul had exhorted them apart from such circumstances, he would have accomplished nothing important. But now, using a suitable occasion for strict rebuke, he inspired much greater fear in Peter’s disciples.

If Peter, after hearing the rebuke, had begun to contradict, someone could rightly have accused him of overturning the order of salvation. But now, when one rebukes and the other is silent, the believers from the Jews were struck with great fear.

For this reason he rebukes Peter so strongly. See with what caution he speaks, allowing the prudent to perceive that his words were not a matter of strife, but of wise provision.

“But when Peter came to Antioch,” he says, “I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” He did not say, “he stood condemned by me,” but “by others.”

If Paul himself had condemned him, he would not have hesitated to say so. His words, “I opposed him to his face,” are only a figurative expression.

If they had truly been at variance with one another, they surely would not have rebuked each other in the presence of the disciples. By doing so they would have given great scandal.

But now this apparent disagreement was useful. As Paul yielded to the Apostles in Jerusalem, so they yielded to him in Antioch. In what, then, did the contradiction consist?

Paul then points to examples of Peter’s zeal: see Mt 16:16; Mt 16:22; Mt 17:4; Jn 21:7; Acts 2.

Thus "I withstood him to his face" was only an appearance. If the conflict had been real, they would not have accused one another before the disciples, because they would have caused them great scandal. But now the visible outward opposition served for the correction of the disciples. Peter did not contradict him at all. It is clear that he agreed with Paul's objection. "Because he was to be blamed." He did not say, "by me," but simply, "by others," who did not know that this was done with a good intention. They considered it hypocrisy that, in the absence of the Jerusalem believers, he ate with the Gentiles, but when they came, he withdrew. Others understood it this way: Peter had already been blamed before, Paul says, because he ate with Cornelius. Therefore now also he withdrew, fearing new reproaches. When he withdrew, I withstood him.

"But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in his dissimulation, so that even Barnabas was carried away with them in their dissimulation."

From the fact that Peter ate with the Gentiles before certain men came from Jerusalem, it is clear that he had not forgotten the earlier instruction. No one was to call any man common (communem) or unclean.

Yet, for the sake of those who thought that the Law still had to be observed, he gradually withdrew from living together with the Gentiles. Even the rest of the Jews were compelled to do the same, as was Barnabas, who had preached the Gospel among the Gentiles with Paul.

Those in Antioch who had believed in Christ from among the Gentiles and were not circumcised were being urged toward the heavy yoke of the Law. They did not understand Peter's condescension, by which he wished to save the Jews. They thought that this was how the matter stood according to the Gospel.

Therefore, when the Apostle Paul saw that the grace of Christ was in danger, and that the ancient enemy (bellator) was using a new method in battle, he withstood Peter openly. By a new condescension of the opposite kind, he corrected Peter's condescension toward the Jews.

He did this not in order to rebuke Peter's intention, but so that, through this public (in publico) censure, those who had believed in Christ from the Gentiles might be saved. Thus Paul rose up as Peter's reprover.

If anyone thinks that Peter was truly opposed by Paul, and that Paul fearlessly insulted the preceding Apostle for the truth of the Gospel, such a man will not understand (non ei stabit) Paul's own conduct. Paul himself became a Jew to the Jews, in order to gain the Jews.

He himself becomes liable to the same dissimulation when he shaved his head completely in Cenchreae (facto calvitio), carried an offering to Jerusalem, circumcised Timothy, and walked barefoot. These were undoubtedly among the ceremonial practices (caeremoniis) of the Jews (Acts 18:18; Acts 16:3).

If the same man who was sent to preach to the Gentiles did not think it useless to say, "Give no offense to the Jews, or to the Church of God, just as I please all men in all things, not seeking what is profitable to me alone. But to many, that they may be saved" (1 Cor 10:32-33), and yet did certain things contrary (contraria) to the Gospel so as not to scandalize the Jews, then on what ground, and with what face, would he dare reproach Peter?

Peter was the Apostle of the circumcised. Paul was himself the Apostle of the Gentiles, and he deserved reproach in the very thing he himself allowed.

But, as we said before, Paul publicly (secundum faciem publicam) opposes Peter and the other brethren, or false brethren, with a feigned rebuke. His purpose is to expose their dissimulation in observing the Law, which was harming the believers from the Gentiles.

He does this so that both peoples (uterque populus) may be saved. The one people praise circumcision and follow Peter. The other, who did not wish to undergo circumcision, are saved through Paul's open approval of freedom of action.

The words "he was to be blamed," with the addition that he abstained from eating together, are said so that we may understand something. Peter deserved reproach not so much from Paul as from those brethren with whom he had formerly eaten, and from whom he later separated himself.

That dissimulation for a time can be useful and permissible is shown by the example of Jehu, king of Israel. He could kill the priests of Baal only by pretending that he wished to honor the idol with worship.

He says, "Gather to me all the priests of Baal. For if Ahab served Baal a little, I will serve him much" (4 Kings 10:18-19). David did the same when he changed his face before Abimelech, who let him go, and he departed (1 Kingdoms 21:12-13).

It is not surprising if righteous men practice some dissimulation for a time, for their own salvation and that of others. Our Lord Himself had no sin and no flesh of sin, yet He assumed the likeness of sinful flesh.

He did this so that, having condemned sin in the flesh, He might make us in Himself the righteousness of God.

There is no doubt that Paul had read in the Gospel the Lord's command: "If your brother sins against you, go and correct him between yourself and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother" (Lk 17:3).

If this is commanded with regard to the least brethren, how would Paul have dared to rebuke the greatest Apostle publicly, so unrestrainedly and persistently? He would not have done so unless this manner of rebuke pleased Peter himself.

Nor did Paul wish to offend the one of whom he had earlier said, "I came to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other Apostles." Then he said, "He who worked with Peter in the apostleship to the circumcised." Later he says, "Peter, James, and John, who were considered pillars," and the rest that he says in Peter's praise.

Several times, when I was still a young man, I took part in debates in Rome. I practiced composing objections before imaginary opponents, for which I went before the tribunal.

There I saw the most distinguished orators arguing with one another with such heat that often, leaving their own cases, they turned to personal reproaches. They tore at one another with venomous mockery.

If they do this so that those they defend may not suspect betrayal of their case, and if they deceive the surrounding crowd, what shall we think of such pillars of the Church, Peter and Paul?

What were such vessels of wisdom to do among Jews and Gentiles who were at variance with one another? Surely they had to enter into a visible dispute, so that peace might come among believers.

Thus a sacred disagreement between them led to unity of faith in the Church.

There are some who understand the Cephas whom Paul says he withstood to the face to be not the Apostle Peter, but another of the seventy disciples, called by this name.

They say that Peter could in no way have withdrawn from living with the Gentiles, since he baptized Cornelius the centurion. When he came to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision rose against him and said, "Why did you go in to uncircumcised men and eat with them?"

After recounting the vision that had occurred, he concluded his answer thus: "If then God gave them the same grace as He gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could hinder God?"

When they heard this, they fell silent and glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life."

These objectors insist on this opinion especially because Luke, as a writer of history (scriptor historiae), does not mention this misunderstanding by a single word. He does not even say that Paul was ever in Antioch together with Peter.

On the other hand, they say that this opens a way for Porphyry's slander, if we believe that Peter fell into error, or that Paul boldly rebuked the chief Apostle (principem apostolorum).

To such interpreters one must first answer that I do not know of any other Cephas known to us. Only the one who in the Gospel, in Paul's other epistles, and in this very epistle is written (scribitur) sometimes as Cephas and sometimes as Peter.

This is not because the name Cephas means one thing and Peter another. It is because what the Greeks and Latins call petra, the Hebrews and Syrians, by the kinship of their language, call Cephas.

Finally, the whole course of the argument, secretly directed toward Peter, James, and John, refutes the interpretation set forth above.

Nor is it at all surprising that Luke is silent about this circumstance. Using the freedom proper to a writer of past events, he passed over many other things as well, which Paul relates as matters he had experienced.

If one writer judged something worth reporting for a known reason, while the other passed it over among other matters, this is not at once a sign of contradiction between them.

Finally, we accept the tradition that Peter was the first bishop in Antioch and from there crossed over to Rome, about which Luke is completely silent.

In the last resort, if because of Porphyry's slanders we must invent another Cephas, lest anyone think that Peter fell into error, then much else must be excluded from Holy Scripture. Porphyry attacks it because he does not understand it.

But if Christ commands us, we shall come forth against Porphyry in another work. For now, let us proceed.

These difficulties are greater than admitting Peter's real concession and Paul's sharp rebuke of him. Therefore they accept the fact that Peter made an error and that he was corrected by Paul's admonition. Some fear that admitting the reality of Peter's hypocrisy in this case undermines the authority of the apostles as God-inspired preachers and infallible pillars of the Church. This fear is groundless. It is not the apostles, nor those reputed pillars of the Church, who are infallible, but the Church herself. Or rather, the infallible One is the Spirit of Truth, Who dwells in her and is poured out upon her by the infallible Head, Christ, Who abides with her forever. As a man, through human weakness, Peter erred. As an instrument of the infallible Holy Spirit, Paul corrected his error (cf. 1 Jn 1:8-10).

But "to live like a Gentile" here means only to have communion with Gentiles and not observe the ceremonial Mosaic law. This is how the Apostle Peter usually lived or acted, although he was a Jew by birth. Now, however, "fearing those of the circumcision," he began outwardly to live like a Jew and to withdraw from communion with Christians from among the Gentiles. This example of the Apostle Peter, who was foremost in the choir of the apostles, compelled those who were Gentiles by birth and now Christians by faith to imitate him. This is why Paul says to him, "You compel the Gentiles to live like Jews." At that time Christ's Church was divided, as it were, into two flocks: Christians from among the Jews and Christians from among the Gentiles. The head of one flock, the Christians from among the Jews, was the Apostle Peter. The head of the other, the Christians from among the Gentiles, was the Apostle Paul (Gal 2:7). Non-observance of the Mosaic law was a scandal for the first flock, while observance of it was a scandal for the second. Each of the two apostles protected his flock from scandals. Therefore it was natural for Peter, out of pastoral love for those entrusted to him, to conceal his non-observance of the commandments of Moses. It was equally natural for Paul, out of the same love for his own flock, to rise up publicly against Peter for this. But both apostles acted in one and the same spirit, the spirit of zeal for the salvation of their respective flocks. Although there was visible difference between them, there was also complete unity, understood by both, in the chief matter: care for the salvation of their spiritual children.

The rest of the Jews acted hypocritically with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy." How can the conduct of the Apostle Barnabas, and especially of the great Peter, be reconciled with their apostolic dignity? There seems no need for special efforts or artificial strain to reconcile this. Some, for example Catholic writers, find nothing better than to remove the Apostle Peter entirely from the described event. They say that it was not he, but a certain Cephas. Yet, despite the high dignity of the apostles, they were not strangers to weakness of will and the ordinary frailties of human nature. Therefore mistakes and even falls could happen to them, as in Peter's denial of Christ. An insoluble perplexity would arise only if something erroneous and blameworthy appeared in Peter's own teaching and gospel concerning law and grace. This the Holy Spirit, Who overshadowed the apostles, could not permit. But this was not present in Peter or Barnabas, as was shown at the council in Jerusalem. As for moral and practical activity, the grace of God did not act in any coercive way upon the apostles' will. It never changed their natural dispositions and temperaments. Everything indicates that St. Peter's temperament was sanguine. The usual defect of this temperament is that sudden and unexpected things disturb and confuse such people. By contrast, every obstacle acts only as a stimulus upon people of choleric temperament. The holy Apostle Paul was evidently of such a temperament.

At the apostolic council it was decreed that Christians from among the Gentiles should be freed from observing the rites of the Mosaic law. Yet Jews were not forbidden to observe them. Therefore, so long as no need presented itself in Antioch for Peter to bind himself with the bonds of Jewish ordinances, he lived freely with Christians from among the Gentiles. But when those who observed these prescriptions arrived, and he saw a need for this, he withdrew from his former freedom and bound himself with those bonds. He acted, so to speak, according to the demand of circumstances. Yet to some, such freedom seemed like wavering. This is why the Apostle Paul decided that greater definiteness was needed here, grounded in inward and sincere conviction, free from every hypocrisy. Into such hypocrisy fell not only simple people, who lacked Peter's lofty convictions, but even such eminent figures in the Church as Barnabas. He acted not from conviction, but by being carried away by the example of others. In this hypocrisy there appeared an obvious harm. Likewise harmful was the unfavorable impression made upon the Antiochians by Peter's conduct. This moved the Apostle Paul to explain to him his direct view of the matter. St. John Chrysostom says, "Many thought that Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not right. It must not be understood so. His words were not a matter of strife, but of service and wise arrangement. Paul rebukes, and Peter good-naturedly endures the rebuke, so that the disciples might be persuaded more quickly to change their way of thinking." As for the Apostle Peter's fear, John Chrysostom notes that he feared not danger to himself, but that his disciples might depart from him. Paul himself feared the same thing. This fear increased still more because the arrivals from Jerusalem were such that they could not bear any condescension toward the Gentiles. In this they appealed to the Apostle James, although he did not share their concession. This also stirred the Apostle Paul, who therefore resolved to speak on the matter in detail.

From this one must conclude that a fair amount of time passed from the council to that moment. During that time St. Peter could have come to Antioch. Some refer this to the time after St. Paul's second apostolic journey, from which he returned and spent some time in Antioch (Acts 18:23). But in that case one must bring Barnabas there from Cyprus. This is an unnecessary supposition, which can be avoided by the first view. Yet there is no need to insist on the most exact determination of the time, because it cannot influence the meaning of the account. "I withstood him to his face" means either at once, when he noticed the scandal, or with firmness, without indulgence. He did not spare him because he was one of the elders. Or it means the same as what follows, "before all," that is, not postponing the matter in order to speak privately. The good of the Church required this. "Because he was to be blamed," κατεγνωσμενος ην, means that he had been censured. This makes one think that he had been censured not by the Apostle Paul, but by others, the Antiochian Christians from among the Gentiles. "He did not say that he was censured by me, but that he was to be blamed, meaning censure from others. If Paul himself had blamed him, he would not have feared to say so" (St. Chrysostom). "Not knowing the reason, some blamed him" (Blessed Theophylact). "He was blamed not by Paul, who knew why Peter acted so, but by those who did not know this and thought that he was truly acting hypocritically" (Oecumenius). For what, then, was St. Peter blamed? For having previously eaten with Christians from among the Gentiles, and later withdrawing from them.