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.
THEOSIS