Galatians 2:12

But they themselves, while knowing the same God, continued in the ancient observances; so that even Peter, fearing also lest he might incur their reproof, although formerly eating with the Gentiles, because of the vision, and of the Spirit who had rested upon them, yet, when certain persons came from James, withdrew himself, and did not eat with them. And Paul said that Barnabas likewise did the same thing.

Paul, however, censures Peter for not walking straightforwardly according to the truth of the gospel. No doubt he blames him; but it was solely because of his inconsistency in the matter of "eating," which he varied according to the sort of persons (whom he associated with) "fearing them which were of the circumcision," but not on account of any perverse opinion touching another god.

Perhaps indeed he would at this point have kept silent about the sin that he says he reproved in Peter, for it was enough that Peter had been corrected by popular reproof and Paul’s open accusation. But it is profitable and extremely requisite for this letter. He has two reasons for relating the incident. First, his own gospel was not reproved, and he himself, when he reproved Peter, heard no reproof from Peter. Next, this too, as I said, was extremely pertinent: it is because the Galatians thought that they needed to add to the principles of the gospel to obtain life … that this letter is being written to them. Hence it is very good to tell the story, because it is this very fault that was reproved by Paul in Peter and by the people also. In this way it follows that the Galatians too are sinning.

But in what way was Peter sinning? He had not adopted this ruse to bring in the Jews, meeting them on their own terms (which Paul himself had done and glories in having done, meeting the Jews on their own terms but for their profit). Rather, the sin of Peter lay in the fact that he withdrew, through fear of those who were of the circumcision.

Having by these means declared the unanimity and harmony between the Apostles and himself, he is obliged to proceed to mention his debate with Peter at Antioch.

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision."

Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it; we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers. But first a word must be said about Peter's freedom in speech, and how it was ever his way to outstrip the other disciples. Indeed it was upon one such occasion that he gained his name from the unbending and impregnable character of his faith. For when all were interrogated in common, he stepped before the others and answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mat. xvi: 16.) This was when the keys of heaven were committed to him. So too, he appears to have been the only speaker on the Mount; (Mat. xvii: 4.) and when Christ spoke of His crucifixion, and the others kept silence, he said, "Be it far from Thee." (Mat. xvi: 22.) These words evince, if not a cautious temper, at least a fervent love; and in all instances we find him more vehement than the others, and rushing forward into danger. So when Christ was seen on the beach, and the others were pushing the boat in, he was too impatient to wait for its coming to land. (John xxi: 7.) And after the Resurrection, when the Jews were murderous and maddened, and sought to tear the Apostles in pieces, he first dared to come forward, and to declare, that the Crucified was taken up into heaven. (Acts ii: 14, Acts 2:36) It is a greater thing to open a closed door, and to commence an action, than to be free-spoken afterwards. How could he ever dissemble who had exposed his life to such a populace? He who when scourged and bound would not bate a jot of his courage, and this at the beginning of his mission, and in the heart of the chief city where there was so much danger,-how could he, long afterwards in Antioch, where no danger was at hand, and his character had received lustre from the testimony of his actions, feel any apprehension of the believing Jews? How could he, I say, who at the very first and in their chief city feared not the Jews while Jews, after a long time and in a foreign city, fear those of them who had been converted? Paul therefore does not speak this against Peter, but with the same meaning in which he said, "for they who were reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me." But to remove any doubt on this point, we must unfold the reason of these expressions.

The Apostles, as I said before, permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, an abrupt severance from the law not being practicable; but when they come to Antioch, they no longer continued this observance, but lived indiscriminately with the believing Gentiles which thing Peter also was at that time doing. But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him. For had he, having allowed circumcision when preaching at Jerusalem, changed his course at Antioch, his conduct would have appeared to those Jews to proceed from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excess of pliancy. And this would have created no small offence; but in Paul, who was well acquainted with all the facts, his withdrawal would have raised no such suspicion, as knowing the intention with which he acted. Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter submits, that when the master is blamed, yet keeps silence, the disciples may more readily come over. Without this occurrence Paul's exhortation would have had little effect, but the occasion hereby afforded of delivering a severe reproof, impressed Peter's disciples with a more lively fear. Had Peter disputed Paul's sentence, he might justly have been blamed as upsetting the plan, but now that the one reproves and the other keeps silence, the Jewish party are filled with serious alarm; and this is why he used Peter so severely. Observe too Paul's careful choice of expressions, whereby he points out to the discerning, that he uses them in pursuance of the plan, and not from anger.

His words are, "When Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned;" that is, not by me but by others; had he himself condemned him, he would not have shrunk from saying so. And the words, "I resisted him to the face," imply a scheme for had their discussion been real, they would not have rebuked each other in the presence of the disciples, for it would have been a great stumbling block to them. But now this apparent contest was much to their advantage; as Paul had yielded to the Apostles at Jerusalem, so in turn they yield to him at Antioch. The cause of censure is this, "For before that certain came from James," who was the teacher at Jerusalem, "he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the Circumcision:" his cause of fear was not his own danger, (for if he feared not in the beginning, much less would he do so then,) but their defection. As Paul himself says to the Galatians, "I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain:" (Gal. iv: 11.) and again, "I fear lest by any means as the serpent beguiled Eve, ...so your minds should be corrupted." (2 Cor. xi: 3.) Thus the fear of death they knew not, but the fear lest their disciples should perish, agitated their inmost soul.

(Verse 11 onwards) But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles. But when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. When I saw that they were not walking straight, according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in the presence of all, 'If you, who are a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?' We are Jews by nature, and not Gentile sinners, but we know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, when the apostle Paul saw that the grace of Christ was in danger, he employed a new battle tactic of the old warrior, to correct the dispensation of Peter, by which he desired the salvation of the Jews, with a new dispensation of contradiction, and to resist him to his face. Not arguing against his intention, but rather publicly contradicting him, so that by Paul's argument and resistance, those who had believed from the Gentiles would be saved. Now if anyone thinks that Paul truly resisted the apostle Peter and boldly did wrong to his predecessor for the sake of the truth of the Gospel, that person's argument will not stand. For even Paul became a Jew to the Jews in order to gain the Jews, and he will be held guilty of the same hypocrisy when he shaved his head in Cenchreae and offered a sacrifice in Jerusalem (Acts 18), and when he circumcised Timothy (Ibid., 16), and practiced foot-washing, which are clearly ceremonial practices of the Jews. Therefore, if the one who was sent to preach to the Gentiles did not think it necessary to say: 'Be without offense to the Jews and to the Church of God' (1 Corinthians 10:32); how can I please everyone in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, so that they may be saved? And he did certain things that were contrary to the freedom of the Gospel, so as not to scandalize the Jews. With what authority, with what audacity does he dare to reprehend this in Peter, who was an apostle of the circumcision, when he himself, the apostle of the Gentiles, is accused of committing the same? But as we have already said, he yielded to the public opinion, to Peter and the rest, so that the hypocrisy of observing the Law, which was harming those who had believed from the Gentiles, would be corrected by the hypocrisy of correction, and both peoples would be saved, both those who praise circumcision follow Peter; and those who do not want to be circumcised, preach Paul's freedom. But what he said was blameworthy, therefore he moderated the fasting; so that we understand that he was not so blameworthy to Paul, as he separated himself from those brothers with whom he had eaten before. But a useful simulation, and one to be adopted in time, let us teach an example of King Jehu of Israel, who could not kill the priests of Baal unless he pretended to want to worship the idol, saying: 'Gather (or 'gather together') for me all the priests of Baal: for if Ahab served Baal in few things, I will serve him in many.' (4 Kings 10:18). And David, when he changed his appearance before Abimelech, and who dismissed him and went away. (1 Kings 21) And it is not surprising, even though righteous men, nevertheless, pretend for a time, for their own and others’ salvation, when our Lord Himself, not having sin nor the flesh of sin, assumed the pretense of sinful flesh, so that, condemning sin in the flesh, He would make us the righteousness of God in Himself. Certainly, Paul had read in the Gospel the Lord commanding: But if your brother sins against you, go and correct him between you and him alone. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. (Luke 17:3) And in what way, when he even commanded this to be done to the least of the brothers, did he dare to rebuke the greatest of the apostles so boldly and steadfastly in public; unless it had pleased Peter to be rebuked in this way, and Paul had not done him any harm, about whom he had said before: I went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and I stayed with him for fifteen days: but I saw none of the other apostles. And again: For he who worked in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision. And below: Peter and James and John, who seemed to be pillars, and the others whom he praises in his praises. Many times, when I was a young man in Rome, I would engage in debates on fictitious lawsuits and exercise myself in true competitions. I would run to the courts of the judges, and I would see the most eloquent orators contending with each other with such bitterness that they would often neglect their duties and turn to personal insults, biting each other with jokes. If they do this, so that they may not incur any suspicion of prevarication, and deceive the surrounding people, what do we think the great pillars of the Church, Peter and Paul, and the vessels of wisdom, ought to have done among the dissenting Jews and Gentiles? Unless it was for the purpose of making their pretended contention the peace of the believers, and the faith of the Church might be established by a holy dispute among them. There are some who think that Cephas, whom Paul writes that he confronted to his face, is not the apostle Peter, but another one of the seventy disciples called by that name. They say that Peter could not have avoided the company of the Gentiles, as he had also baptized the centurion Cornelius. And when he went up to Jerusalem, those who were of the circumcision argued against him, saying: Why did you go to men uncircumcised and eat with them? After recounting the vision, he concluded his response with these words: Therefore, if God gave them the same gift as he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to hinder God? When they heard this, they fell silent and glorified God, saying, 'So then, even to the Gentiles God has granted repentance unto life.' Especially since the writer of the history, Luke, makes no mention of this disagreement; nor does he ever say that Peter was in Antioch with Paul, and that Porphyry was blaspheming; but if it is believed that Peter erred or that Paul insolently refuted the chief of the apostles, first it must be answered that we do not know the name of some other Cephas, unless it is the one who is called both Cephas and Peter in the Gospel, in Paul's other Epistles, and also in this very passage. Not that Peter signifies one thing and Cephas another, but that as we call the rock in Latin and Greek, so the Hebrews and Syrians, because of the similarity of their languages, name it Cephas. Moreover, the entire argument of the epistle, which is indirectly mentioned concerning Peter, James, and John, contradicts this interpretation. It is not surprising that Luke has remained silent on this matter, considering that he has omitted many other things that Paul claims to have endured, by the liberty of a historian, and it is not necessarily contradictory if one deemed worthy of recounting what another left out among other things for a different reason. Lastly, we have learned that Peter was the first bishop of the Church of Antioch, and then transferred to Rome, which Luke completely omitted. Finally, if we are to create another person called Cephas because of Porphyry's blasphemy, so that Peter is not thought to have erred, countless divine Scriptures will have to be erased, which he condemns because he does not understand. But also against Porphyry, we will fight in another way if Christ commands it: now let us continue with the rest.

While active in Judea the holy apostles were forced to live according to the law on account of the weakness of the believers from Jewish backgrounds, for they held fast to the regulations of the law. But when they shifted to the cities of the Gentiles they had no need of such an accommodation but lived according to the freedom of the gospel. This is what the godly Peter did when he arrived in Antioch. He ate freely with the Gentiles. But when some of the Jews came he separated from the Gentiles, so that he might not give those who came from the Jews any pretext for doing harm. This is the meaning of “fearing those of the circumcision.” For he who did not fear the whole host of the Jews did not succumb to fear of men, but he did not wish to furnish them with a pretext for scandal.

From those who came down from Jerusalem. “Because he was afraid of those from the circumcision.” In other words, that he might not scandalize them, and might not suffer anything terrible on their account.