Table of Contents
The incident in which Paul opposed Peter is one of the most educational events in early Christian history, as it highlights important themes about the nature of the gospel, church leadership, and the inclusivity of Gentiles in the early Christian community. This confrontation is recorded in Galatians 2:11-14. To fully understand why Paul opposed Peter, it is essential to examine the context of this confrontation, the specific issues at stake, and the theological implications.
Context of the Confrontation
1. Historical Background
The early Christian church was grappling with the integration of Gentile converts. The central issue was whether Gentile Christians needed to observe the laws of Moses, including circumcision and dietary restrictions. This debate reached a critical point at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), where it was decided that Gentiles did not have to follow all Jewish customs to be part of the Christian community.
2. Peter’s Vision and Actions
Peter played a crucial role in the early church’s acceptance of Gentiles. In Acts 10, he received a vision from God, leading him to understand that the gospel was for all people, not just Jews. Following this vision, Peter visited the house of Cornelius, a Gentile, and witnessed the Holy Spirit falling upon Gentile believers, demonstrating that God did not show favoritism (Acts 10:28, 34-35, NKJV):
“…But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” “Then Peter opened his mouth and said: ‘In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.'”
Peter’s actions and acceptance of Gentiles were initially in line with the inclusive nature of the gospel.
The Incident at Antioch
1. Paul’s Account
The confrontation between Paul and Peter took place in Antioch, as described in Galatians 2:11-14 (NKJV):
“Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, ‘If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?'”
2. Issue at Stake
The primary issue was Peter’s behavior change when certain Jewish Christians arrived from Jerusalem. Before their arrival, Peter freely ate with Gentile Christians, disregarding Jewish dietary laws, which was consistent with the gospel’s inclusivity. However, upon the arrival of the Jewish contingent, Peter, fearing criticism, withdrew from the Gentiles. This action suggested that Gentile Christians were second-class believers unless they adhered to Jewish customs like circumcision, thus undermining the gospel’s message.
Why Paul Opposed Peter
1. Hypocrisy and Fear
Paul identified Peter’s actions as hypocritical. Peter knew that Gentile believers were fully accepted by God without adhering to Jewish customs. His withdrawal was not based on theological conviction but on fear of criticism from the Jewish Christians (Galatians 2:12, NKJV):
“For before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.”
Paul saw this hypocrisy as dangerous because it implied a division in the Christian community based on ethnic and cultural lines, contrary to the gospel.
Paul’s words were not new or strange to Peter. It only served as a reminder of his own experience with gentile believer Cornelius (Acts 10:19 – 11:18) and how the Lord opened the door of salvation to the gentiles and poured His Holy Spirit on them freely. Paul’s admonition also called Peter’s attention to the Jerusalem Council’s decision (Acts 15:7, 22, 29), which released the Gentile believers from the requirements of the Jewish ritual law. Peter should have been more ready to stand firmly in the position he originally took, of entering into full fellowship with the Gentile believers.
2. Integrity of the Gospel
For Paul, the truth of the gospel was at stake. The gospel proclaimed that salvation was through faith in Jesus Christ alone. By withdrawing from the Gentiles, Peter’s actions suggested that the Mosaic law of circumcision was still necessary for full acceptance into the Christian community. Paul’s concern was that this would mislead believers and distort the gospel’s message of grace (Galatians 2:14, NKJV):
“But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, ‘If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?'”
3. Unity of the Church
Paul also understood the importance of unity in the church. The division caused by Peter’s actions could lead to a split between Jewish and Gentile Christians. In other parts of his writings, Paul emphasized that in Christ, there is no division between Jew and Gentile (Galatians 3:28, NKJV):
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
By opposing Peter, Paul aimed to preserve the unity and inclusivity of the Christian community.
Clearly, there was no real controversy between Peter and Paul. They were in agreement on the general principles and the decision of the council with respect to the status of Gentiles within the Christian church. And for this reason, Peter remained silent and didn’t give a defense to his actions. He was wrong in judgment at that particular incident. And his submission revealed his good intentions and willingness to be reminded and corrected. This very spirit of humility united the disciples and also the Jews and the gentiles in their mission to spread the truth to all the world
Theological Implications
1. Justification by Faith
Paul’s confrontation with Peter underscores the doctrine of justification by faith, which is central to Pauline theology. In Galatians 2:16 (NKJV), Paul states:
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”
Peter’s behavior contradicted this core belief, as it suggested that adherence to the Mosaic law of circumcision was necessary for acceptance by God. Obedience to the law doesn’t bring salvation but is simply the fruit of justification by faith (Romans 3:31).
2. Freedom in Christ
Paul advocated for the freedom believers have in Christ, free from the constraints of the Mosaic Law. Galatians 5:1 (NKJV) states:
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.”
By eating with Gentiles, Peter initially embraced this freedom. However, his withdrawal threatened to impose the Mosaic law’s restrictions on Gentile believers, contradicting the freedom Paul championed.
3. Consistency in Leadership
Paul’s opposition to Peter also highlights the importance of consistency and integrity in church leadership. Leaders must exemplify the gospel’s truths in their actions. Paul emphasized this in 1 Timothy 4:12 (NKJV):
“Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity.”
Peter’s actions had the potential to lead others astray, demonstrating why Paul found it necessary to confront him publicly.
Broader Biblical Themes
1. Inclusivity of the Gospel
The confrontation reinforces the theme of the gospel’s inclusivity. The New Testament consistently emphasizes that the gospel is for all people, regardless of ethnic or cultural background. Ephesians 2:14-16 (NKJV) explains:
“For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.”
2. God’s Moral Law (the Ten Commandments) Is Still Binding
The ending of Judaism did not mean the abolition of all the laws that God had given to the Jews. The ceremonial law which pointed to Christ rightfully came to an end when Christ fulfilled its types. Jewish civil law had already largely passed away with the passing of the nation’s sovereignty. But the moral precepts (Ten Commandments), which are a transcript of the character of God, are as eternal as God Himself and can never be abolished.
Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (Matthew 5:17,18, NKJV).
While Moses law of ordinances (temple ceremonies, circumcision, etc.) is nailed to the cross, Paul makes emphatically clear that God’s moral law of the Ten Commandments, which was written by the finger of God twice on stone (Exodus 20:1-17), is not abolished (Romans 3:31). In fact, Paul adds, “but the keeping of the commandments of God [is everything]” (1 Corinthians 7:19). And he affirms, “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law” (Romans 3:31, NKJV).
3. Conflict Resolution in the Early Church
This incident provides a model for addressing conflicts within the church. Paul’s approach was direct but aimed at restoration and truth. Matthew 18:15-17 (NKJV) outlines the process for resolving conflicts:
“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.”
Paul’s confrontation with Peter, while public, was aimed at maintaining the integrity of the gospel and the unity of the church.
Conclusion
Paul’s opposition to Peter in Antioch was a significant event that addressed crucial issues regarding the nature of the gospel, the inclusivity of Gentile believers, and the unity of the early Christian church. Paul’s confrontation was driven by a commitment to the truth of the gospel and the doctrine of justification by faith. This incident underscores the importance of consistency and integrity in church leadership and provides a model for addressing conflicts within the Christian community.
The theological implications of this confrontation resonate throughout Paul’s writings and the New Testament, reinforcing the gospel’s inclusivity and the centrality of faith in Christ for salvation. By standing against Peter’s actions, Paul helped to ensure that the early church remained true to the inclusive and liberating message of the gospel, a message that continues to shape Christian faith and practice today.
Check out our Bible Answers page for more information on a variety of topics.
In His service,
BibleAsk Team