The Other Apostolic Dispute
Knowing Your Apostles — Part 6
This is a fun, lighthearted series intended not necessarily to teach, but to spark conversation. Consider this an open invitation to share what you know, like, dislike, or simply find interesting about any of the apostles. This is a judgment-free zone, so feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.
Series Sixth Question
The sixth question of this series is: Was Paul wrong to publicly rebuke Peter?
My Answer: Yes
I believe the apostle Paul was wrong to publicly rebuke the apostle Peter. Notice that my emphasis is on “publicly.” I believe the rebuke itself was justified, but I disagree with the public manner in which it was delivered because:
I don’t believe Peter’s offense warranted a public rebuke, at least not as the first step.
I think it failed to give proper regard to Peter’s position as a senior apostle and elder.
It doesn’t align with the pattern Jesus taught and modeled for handling sin and correction (Matthew 18:15–17).
But before I get into that, a few biographical facts.
A Few Biographical Facts
Both men are well-known apostles, so I won’t spend much time on their biographies.
Peter
Peter was the first person Jesus called to be an apostle, making him, in a sense, first among equals. Along with James and John—the two brothers—he formed Jesus’ inner circle.
He led the church on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and was the primary spokesman in defending the faith before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council (Acts 4–5).
You can read more about his life in Part 2 of this series, The Outspoken Apostle and His Transformation.
Paul
I believe Paul was arguably the early church’s most fearless apostle and its leading apologist. He began as a persecutor of the church but, after his conversion, became its most prominent defender.
You can read more about his life in Part 4 of this series, The Greatest Apostolic Dispute.
The Incident at Antioch
Interestingly, Luke does not record this rebuke in Acts as he does Paul’s disagreement with Barnabas. Instead, the account comes from Paul himself in Galatians 2, where he says:
“Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;”
— v.11
Peter had come to Antioch and was apparently very comfortable eating with Gentiles, I believe in no small measure because of the vision the Lord had shown him and his subsequent visit to Cornelius’ house (Acts 10). He had come to understand that he was not to discriminate against Gentiles and was comfortable eating with them until some believers who appear to have been James’ disciples arrived from Jerusalem. Paul writes:
“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.”
— v.12
The Jewish practice of not eating with Gentiles was an ethnocultural one never commanded by God. It’s why the Samaritan woman questioned why Jesus would ask her for a drink of water (John 4:9).
Based on the details Paul provides, the incident appears to have taken place shortly after the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), where the apostles and elders settled the question of whether Gentiles should be circumcised, and before Paul and Barnabas parted ways, since Paul says:
“...even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.”
— v.13
Should Paul Have Publicly Rebuked Peter?
Should Paul have publicly rebuked Peter over this? I believe the answer is no. In fact, I don’t think it should even have been a rebuke, given Peter’s status in the church. It should have been a private correction.
Some may point to 1 Timothy 5:19–20 as justification for Paul’s actions, but I believe that misses the point.
“Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.”
Let me explain.
Peter was indeed an elder and fits the general framework of the passage, but what he did was not, in itself, a sin. There are two things at play here: the action and the motive.
Withdrawing from eating with Gentiles (the action) was not sinful. Doing so because he feared offending James’ disciples (the motive) could certainly be considered wrong. Frankly, I’m not even sure I would call it hypocrisy. Peter wasn’t living a lie; he wanted to avoid offending—or perhaps more accurately, appeasing—these believers.
For perspective, Paul himself did something similar on two occasions.
First, in Acts 16:3, he had Timothy, whose father was Greek, circumcised. One of Paul’s biggest theological fights was over circumcision but he did to avoid criticism from this same group—the circumcision party. Some may point out that Timothy’s mother was Jewish, but that doesn’t change the fact that Paul did it to avoid criticism from that group.
Second, in Acts 21, on the advice of James—and possibly Peter, if he was still in Jerusalem at the time—Paul underwent Jewish purification with four men and paid their expenses to avoid the accusation that he was teaching Jews to forsake the Law of Moses.
“Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.”
— Acts 21:24
Paul didn’t sin, just as I don’t believe Peter did. In both cases, however, the motive was essentially the same: to avoid criticism or causing offense to a particular group.
Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23, Paul explained that he adapted himself to different people depending on the situation in order to win them. No one would accuse Paul of hypocrisy for doing that. To be clear, I’m not accusing Paul of hypocrisy either. I’m simply pointing out that there is an important nuance here that should not be overlooked.
How Should Paul Have Handled Peter’s Actions?
Jesus established a model which I believe serves as a general principle for resolving conflicts and correcting others: Matthew 18:15–17. It is a three-step process, and the first step is a private conversation.
“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.”
— v.15
The second step is mediation (v.16). The final step is to bring the matter before the church (v.17).
I believe Paul should have corrected—or, if necessary, rebuked—Peter privately first. I think it should have mattered that Peter was an apostle of the first order, an elder in the Jerusalem church, and senior to Paul in the church’s leadership.
Given that Peter neither argued nor became defensive (Galatians 2:11–14), I’m confident he would have taken the appropriate steps to also publicly correct his actions without the need for a public rebuke or confrontation.
Lessons from the Incident
I believe there are important lessons to be learned from this incident.
One
The Church needs leaders like Paul who are willing to boldly call out sin within their leadership circles, or elsewhere when it is clearly present and established.
Sin must be exposed—especially among leaders—without exception, in order to protect the body of believers.
Recently, I heard a pastor at Lionheart Church criticize Christians who call out megachurch pastors for living frivolous and extravagant lifestyles. I found his defense baffling because many of the criticisms are legitimate, especially considering that he himself is not a megachurch pastor.
There is often a cover-up culture around church leadership that resists accountability, even when wrongdoing is present. We have seen this at times—for example, more recently with Bethel Church, which, according to Mike Winger’s exposé, failed to expose false prophets like Shawn Boltz.
Two
We also need leaders like Peter—those who receive correction and respond appropriately, whether by repentance or stepping back from leadership when necessary.
Peter appears to have accepted the rebuke. He did not argue with Paul, and there is no indication of any resentment. In fact, Peter later speaks of Paul with respect (2 Peter 3:15).
There are many unqualified individuals leading God’s people who remain unaccountable and unwilling to receive correction.
Church leaders must be held accountable and, hopefully, will respond with the kind of humility and maturity that Peter demonstrated.
Your Turn
What do you think? Do you agree that Paul was wrong to confront Peter the way he did? If not, I would like to hear your thoughts in the comments.