John Calvin Commentary Galatians 2:11

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned." — Galatians 2:11 (ASV)

When Peter was come. Whoever carefully examines all the circumstances will, I trust, agree with me in thinking that this happened before the apostles had decided that the Gentiles should receive no trouble about ceremonial observances (Acts 15:28). For Peter would have had no fear of offending James, or those sent by him, after that decision had been passed; but such was Peter's dissimulation that, in opposing it, Paul was driven to assert the truth of the gospel. First, he said that the certainty of his gospel does not in any degree depend on Peter and the apostles, so as to stand or fall by their judgment. Second, he said that it had been approved by all without any exception or contradiction, and particularly by those who were universally admitted to hold the highest place. Now, as I have said, he goes further and asserts that he had blamed Peter for leaning to the other side; and he proceeds to explain the cause of the dispute. It was no ordinary proof of the strength of his doctrine that he not only obtained their cordial approval, but firmly maintained it in a debate with Peter, and came off victorious. What reason could there now be for hesitating to receive it as certain and undoubted truth?

At the same time, this is a reply to another false accusation, that Paul was merely an ordinary disciple, far below the rank of an apostle; for the reproof he administered was evidence that the parties were on an equal footing. The highest, I acknowledge, are sometimes properly reproved by the lowest, for this liberty on the part of inferiors toward their superiors is permitted by God; and so it does not follow that he who reproves another must be his equal. But the nature of the reproof deserves notice. Paul did not simply reprove Peter, as one Christian might reprove another, but he did it officially, so to speak; that is, in the exercise of the apostolic character he sustained.

This is another thunderbolt that strikes the Papacy of Rome. It exposes the impudent pretensions of the Roman Antichrist, who boasts that he is not bound to give a reason, and defies the judgment of the whole Church. Without rashness, without undue boldness, but in the exercise of the power granted him by God, this single individual rebukes Peter in the presence of the whole Church; and Peter submissively bows to the rebuke. Indeed, the whole debate on those two points was nothing less than a manifest overthrow of that tyrannical primacy, which the Romanists foolishly enough claim is founded on divine right. If they wish to have God appearing on their side, a new Bible must be manufactured; if they do not wish to have Him as an open enemy, those two chapters of the Holy Scriptures must be removed.

Because he was worthy of blame. The Greek participle, κατεγνωσμένος, signifies Blamed, so that the words run, “because he was blamed;” but I have no doubt whatever that the word was intended to express, “one who deserves just blame.” Chrysostom takes the meaning to be that others had previously indulged in complaint and accusation; but this is really trivial.

It was customary with the Greeks to give their participles the meaning of nouns, which, everyone must see, is applicable to this passage. This will enable us to perceive the absurdity of the interpretation given by Jerome and Chrysostom, who represent the whole transaction as a staged debate, which the apostles had previously arranged to take place in the presence of the people. They are not even supported by the phrase, “I withstood him to the face,” κατὰ πρόσωπον, which means that “to the face,” or “being present,” Peter was rebuked and struck dumb. Chrysostom’s observation that, to avoid scandal, they would have talked in private if they had any difference, is frivolous. The less important must be disregarded in comparison with the most dangerous of all scandals—that the Church would be torn apart, that Christian liberty was in danger, that the doctrine of the grace of Christ was overthrown; and therefore this public offense had to be publicly corrected.

The chief argument on which Jerome rests is excessively trivial. “Why should Paul,” he says, “condemn in another what he takes credit for in himself? For he boasts that to the Jews he became as a Jew” (1 Corinthians 9:20). I reply that what Peter did is totally different. Paul accommodated himself to the Jews no further than was consistent with the doctrine of liberty; and therefore he refused to circumcise Titus, so that the truth of the gospel might remain unimpaired. But Peter Judaized in such a manner as to compel the Gentiles to suffer bondage, and at the same time to create a prejudice against Paul’s doctrine. He did not, therefore, observe the proper limit; for he was more desirous to please than to edify, and more concerned to inquire what would gratify the Jews than what would be beneficial for the whole body. Augustine is therefore right in asserting that this was no previously arranged plan, but that Paul, out of Christian zeal, opposed Peter’s sinful and untimely dissimulation, because he saw that it would be injurious to the Church.