Guthrie adds to this thought when he says, “separation among brethren is not only lamentable but always causes embarrassment to the whole movement.”97 The message that Peter was sending to the Gentile Christians, whether it was intentional or not, was that they were not on the same level with the Jewish Christians and that something was lacking in their faith.98
It is commonly accepted that this incident took place a number of years after Peter’s encounter with the Gentile Cornelius in Acts 10. In that incident Peter was given a vision from God to show him that he should not hesitate to go to Cornelius’ house. After Peter preached and the Gentiles there received the gospel, Peter stayed with them for a few days.99 Peter then had to defend his actions to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. Their criticism of him is contained in Acts 11:3, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.” After Peter explained his actions in light of the vision he had received and the fact of the Holy Spirit coming on the Gentiles, the Jerusalem believers concluded, “So, then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.”100
The incident with Cornelius and the one at Antioch in Galatians 2:11-14 are both very similar. The question that naturally arises is why would Peter have felt a need to distance himself from the Gentile believers in Antioch after his experience with Cornelius? The most likely reason, according to Cousar, is that there was a wave of intense nationalism that was sweeping through the Jews in Palestine at this time.101 Word of Peter’s willingness to embrace the Gentile believers had gotten back to Jerusalem and James was concerned enough to send some brothers, “to inform him of the possible repercussions for his Christian brothers and sisters in Jerusalem.”102 If this was the case, then Peter’s abandonment of the common meals was, “based on a concern for the unity and peace of the church, at least the unity and peace of the Antioch and Jerusalem congregations.”103
Whatever Peter’s motives were for drawing back from fellowshipping with the Gentile Christians, Paul’s analysis of the situation was that Peter, “was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.”104 The question that should then be asked is, “Is this a fair assessment of Peter’s personality?” Because Peter is mentioned in all four of the Gospels, as well as in Acts, we are better able to get a complete picture of his personality than many of the other figures found in the New Testament. In the Gospels, he is shown on occasion to be inconsistent in his behavior.105 One example is found in Matthew 16:16-23, where right after Peter acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah, he rebukes Jesus for teaching about His coming death, and in turn gets rebuked by Jesus. It could be argued that the reason that Peter rebuked Jesus was out of his fear of losing Him. Peter also demonstrated the characteristic of fear after Jesus was arrested. Just prior to this he had boldly stated his devotion to Jesus, saying that he was willing to die for Him. Soon afterwards, however, he denied repeatedly that he even knew Jesus. Based on these two examples from earlier in Peter’s life, it is likely that Paul’s assessment of Peter is accurate and that he was afraid of the repercussions that would have occurred if he had continued to eat with the Gentile Christians.
The position that Peter occupied in the Jerusalem Church was in many ways a much more difficult position than the one Paul occupied in Antioch.106 Peter possibly felt that if word got back to Jerusalem, “that he was eating with Gentiles it would compromise his position with the leading church.”107 There was probably also concern that Peter’s behavior would leave the church in Jerusalem open to persecution by militant Jews. So, while Peter may have been operating out of fear, Cousar points out that he probably felt that he was doing the right thing. Paul understood this and, “his concern is not that Peter is insincere but that he is very sincere and is blind to the full import of his actions.”108[author’s italics] Paul understood the long-term ramifications of Peter’s behavior. There is no indication that Peter was preaching a salvation by “works of the law” message in Antioch. Paul, however, understands that Peter’s actions will lead to a theology of salvation by works, whether Peter intended it or not.109
It is important to note that when Paul confronted Peter about his actions, the confrontation was based on principle. This confrontation does not appear to be a personality conflict or a power-struggle in which Paul was trying to establish his own authority as an apostle. Paul does not appear to be attempting to downplay the authority of Peter.110 In fact, Paul has already established his apostolic authority in Galatians 1 and 2:1-10, and he willingly acknowledged the authority of the Jerusalem apostles. When he challenged Peter, it was because Peter was in the wrong and needed to be challenged. Peter had violated a fundamental truth of the gospel that he and the Jerusalem apostles had agreed on. Peter’s position as a leading apostle made his indiscretion even more serious because he influenced others to join him in separating from the Gentile believers.111
As Paul describes this incident, he lays all of the blame on Peter, saying, “he was clearly in the wrong.” The NASB translates it as, “he stood condemned.” While this sounds like a harsh judgment against Peter, Paul understood, much more clearly than Peter, the damage that he had done. As Cole says, Peter, “was acting not only against his conscience and against the clear revelation that he had received in Acts 10, but also against his past tradition and custom in Antioch.”112 Paul must have known of the vision that God had given to Peter and how it led him to Cornelius’ house. Paul must have also known how Peter had defended his actions in Acts 11. Paul had seen, with his own eyes, Peter enjoying table-fellowship with the Gentile Christians in Antioch. There was no way that he was going to let Peter’s hypocrisy go unchallenged.
It is significant that Paul states that he confronted Peter, “in front of them all,” implying that the rebuke took place before the whole church. Paul’s understanding of the seriousness of Peter’s sin precluded a private rebuke. His actions had presumably affected the entire church so the rebuke took place before the entire church.113 This contrasts with the earlier contacts that Paul had with Peter. In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul had private meetings with Peter and James. In Galatians 2:1-10, Paul and Barnabas met privately with James, Peter, and John to lay the gospel that they were preaching before them. In this encounter in Antioch, however, Paul understood that there was too much at stake to try and rebuke Peter privately. It had to be done in a public meeting so that Paul could reemphasize to the entire church that the Gentiles did not have to obey the Law to become Christians.114 In a very real sense, in rebuking Peter publicly, Paul was trying to undo some of the damage that he had done.
In examining the rebuke itself, Pheme Perkins has studied it in the light of the art of ancient rhetoric.115 Paul occupied the place of the true philosopher, whose only regard was for the truth and not public opinion. In this instance in Antioch, “the philosopher is like a physician whose only concern is to heal the soul of his audience.”116 Peter’s role was that of the, “honorable opponent who will be in danger of falling into vice without [Paul’s] intervention.”117 In rebuking Peter, Paul was not attacking him but attempting to correct his behavior in front of all so that the entire community could be healed of the hurt that they had experienced.
The passage follows the rhetorical convention of showing that the speaker, Paul, “has demonstrated courage, integrity, and good will toward the audience by maintaining the truth against extraordinary odds.”118 Paul has made it clear that he was the one that stood up for the truth and stood against those who did not. He contrasts himself with Peter, who he shows to be weak, inconsistent, and hypocritical. “The picture of Peter is deliberately unflattering because Paul wishes to demonstrate the probity of his own character by contrast.”119
The rhetorical argument that Paul has constructed here is designed to support the two actions he wishes his audience to take.120 First of all, Paul wants the Galatians to understand that adopting the Jewish Law and the Jewish way of life is contrary to and incompatible with the gospel that he delivered to them. The second thing that Paul wants the Galatians to do is to expel those who are creating and stirring up conflict in their community by teaching and encouraging this type of lifestyle.
A final issue in regards to Paul’s confrontation with Peter needs to be mentioned: the aftermath. A few questions still remain and need to be discussed.
