Paul's critique of Peter's hypocrisy in Galatians 2:11-21

Galatians 2:11-21
Introduction
Paul’s opposition to Cephus (Peter) in Galatians 2:11-21 is a representation of the clash between the letter of the law and the spirit, which Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 3:6: “He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” For Paul, the sin of Peter is to cling to the Jewish law rather than to embrace the Christian spirit—the sin being the sin of human respect: Peter fears offending the faithful who are Jews by sitting with the uncircumcised Gentiles. Christ had no such fear and His example showed that the spirit of God was above the laws and customs of the Jews. Paul thus remonstrates with Peter to his face in public that the situation might be remedied in public and that those who have been led astray by Peter (like Barnabas) might be led back by the truth of Christ. From the standpoint of Peter’s actions, however, one can argue that the decision to not sit with the Gentiles is more ethnocentric than religio-centric. Peter was not necessarily attempting to teach a new doctrine with regards to God’s holy religion but rather was attempting to not upset those Christians who came from the Jewish tradition. Paul even tells Peter that he is a Jew who is living like a Gentile but forcing Gentiles to act like Jews: it is a hypocritical position that Paul is pointing out to Peter, and Paul spells it out plainly: “if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:21). Peter’s misstep, though, blurs the religious line as well—which is why Paul ultimately protests: by acting in terms of the letter of a (Jewish) law, Peter gives the implication that the letter gives life whereas what Paul is saying is that it is the spirit of God that gives life: it is is Christ—the One Who saves. Thus, what starts out as an ethnocentric action on Peter’s part does become a religio-centric action with a serious religious implication.
Interpreting the Problem through the Eyes of God
Paul interprets everything through the eyes of God, and that is why he is able to see that the ethnocentric, culturally-focused (but ultimately wrong-footed and hypocritical) position of Peter on whether to sit or not sit with the uncircumcised out of respect for the circumcised is morally and theologically wrong. The basis for this judgment is on the conflict between the letter and the spirit of the law. Paul summarizes the conflict best by stating that it is Christ Who has redeemed the world—not the law. The Pharisees, frequently criticized by Christ for being followers of the letter of the law only rather than of the spirit, represented the group of people who rejected the sacred story of Christ: to them, the sacred story conflicted with their own religio-centric worldview, which was legalistic rather than spiritual. As Hays points out, Peter was stepping outside the parameters of the sacred story and into the mindset and framework of the Pharisees.[footnoteRef:2] The Mosaic Law was Jewish in character, meant for the Jews.[footnoteRef:3] But Christ was for all people and thus the Law of Moses no longer applies. [2: Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ (Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing, 2002), 226.] [3: STEP Bible, Galatians 2:11-21]

Peter’s acceptance of Paul’s rebuke is not done merely to maintain the Gentiles as followers though at a different level—for even that would contradict the essence of what Paul is saying. Peter has deviated from the sacred story of Christ, coming to redeem all mankind—a story that is prepared for in the Old Testament with stories such as Jonah, who is sent to preach repentance to non-Jews, and in the story of Ruth. Ruth especially lays the groundwork for the sacred story that does indeed involve the Gentiles. In the Book of Judges, the story is told of Ruth, the Gentile who accompanies her mother-in-law Naomi back to Israel. Ruth married Boaz and was seen as a sparkling jewel of faith and purity in a time of apostasy and decadence. She represented God’s faithfulness to those who were faithful to Him—to His Spirit and not just to the letters of His laws. Faithfulness to the letter of the law could mask the interior disposition of the soul; thus, God preferred Ruth over others because her interior disposition was spiritually aligned with the Heart of God—much as was David’s who established the line from which Christ Himself would descend.[footnoteRef:4] Ruth thus represents God’s spiritual desire to bring the Gentile world into His kingdom as well. She demonstrates her faith when she commits herself to accompanying Naomi back to Israel; thus, it is a spiritual journey as much as it is a physical journey—and her act of faith is rewarded with redemption.[footnoteRef:5] [4: Terence Y. Mullins, "Jesus, the" Son of David"." Andrews University Seminary Studies (AUSS) 29, no. 2 (1991), 117.] [5: Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (NY: Harper, 1987), 324-257.]

Paul makes the case that Peter is essentially abandoning Naomi by abandoning the uncircumcised Gentiles out of human respect for the circumcised Christians. Though Naomi was Jewish, in the parallel that Paul makes, he shows that Ruth was rewarded not for adhering to a Jewish custom but rather for being faithful to God through an act of love. In marginalizing the uncircumcised Peter was neglecting to show the fullness of Christ’s love for all. Thus, just as Ruth was blessed by God and from her descended David, who became King of the Jews and started the House from which the Messiah would come, Paul argues that Peter is closing the House of God to those he perceives to be offensive to followers of Christ who still also observe the Mosaic Law. From this point of view it can be seen that Peter was not setting out to start a religious battle but rather was attempting to adopt an ethnocentric strategy based on human respect rather than on spiritual insight and understanding. When the meaning of his actions was explained to him, Peter accepted the criticism and changed his position. He was then like Ruth, in whom God showed that His faithfulness is not just to the Chosen People (the Jews) but also to the Gentiles so long as they have faith and trust in Him. His mercy and love is for all who will seek it in Him—that was the point that Paul was making to Peter, who was making the mistake of applying an ethnocentric solution to a religious problem and thereby creating a problem within the practice of their religion.
The Problem of Ethnocentrism
Peter likely did not realize he was being ethnocentric. Ethnocentricity is the assumption that one’s own cultural views and methods of managing conflict are better than others. It is not really an advantageous way to approach managing groups because it can lead to breakdowns in communication between people. The only advantage that it might have is that it can give a person confidence in his own culture and traditions to the point where he wants to spread them to others. But it would be a mistake to believe that these traditions are going to be applicable in every setting or even viewed with esteem by others of different cultural traditions. When people feel they that their cultural traditions and values are superior to those of others, it creates tension. Thus, the big disadvantage of ethnocentricity is that it can create barriers to relationships and communication and can lead people to form stereotypical opinions and biased judgments.
One of the underlying principles of ethnocentrism is the issue of dogmatism. Dogmatism is the idea of holding views that are taken as truth without actually having any evidence or proof to support those views. Dogmatism occurs when a person applies some principle to a situation as though it had to be applied and could not be questioned. Dogmatism can adversely affect group communication by preventing others from being able to speak and offer contrary or contradicting opinions.[footnoteRef:6] It can lead to groupthink, which can lead to errors and omissions on the part of others who know they should speak up but are afraid to. Was Peter being dogmatic about his decision to stop sitting with the uncircumcised? It is quite likely that, no, he was not. He listened to Paul and stopped being ethnocentric when what he was doing was brought to his attention. Peter, it should be remembered, had demonstrated the sin of human respect in the past: after all, he denied Christ three times just as Christ predicted when Our Lord was arrested and brought to trial. Peter was afraid of being associated with Christ at that moment even though he had recognized him as Lord earlier and even vowed that he would never betray Him. Peter’s weakness was always human respect—and Paul puts Peter right by telling him he is acting wrongly in Galatians 2:11-21. [6: Crispin Wright, "The perils of dogmatism." Themes from GE Moore: New essays in epistemology and ethics 25 (2007), 48.]

Had Peter been acting dogmatically, Paul likely would have approached the situation differently as well. Paul would have engaged in what is called the art of argument for the faith, i.e., apologetics. This is when a person explains what the Church believes and why and challenges those who have other dogmas to justify their own beliefs. Group members can deal with a dogmatic group member by asking for the reasons for the principles that he seeks to apply and then discussing why these principles should or should not be accepted based on the available evidence. What Paul does with Peter, however, is different. Paul tells Peter directly that he is wrong for acting the way he is doing and Peter accepts the rebuke in humility because he realizes the error of his ways. Peter was not attempting to introduce a new practice—he was simply falling to the sin of human respect as he had done in the past, and Paul sensed as much when he approached Peter over the matter. Paul knew he was not dealing with one who had abandoned the faith and the truth of Christ. He simply saw a sinner who needed to be corrected because the sinner was unaware of what he was doing. If Peter had been attempting to be dogmatic about this in a religious way, it would have led to a serious break between the two, but the fact that Peter accepted the criticism shows that Peter was not attempting to be dogmatic and that he was in fact unaware of being ethnocentric. Peter’s problem was the problem of human respect at this point, and it was quickly overcome through a simple statement from Paul.[footnoteRef:7] [7: Vincent M. Smiles, "The gospel and the law in Galatia: Paul's response to Jewish-Christian separatism and the threat of Galatian apostasy." (1990), 1342.]

Peter was himself quite possibly engaging in a type of groupthink and allowing himself to act in accordance with the Jewish group that he sought to please. Instead of addressing them with the reasons for why the Gentiles were to be considered their equals in the Christian faith, Peter engaged in a type of “yes man” groupthink with the Jews by not associating with the Gentiles, even though as Paul points out Peter had been living like a Gentile. It is clear that Peter was putting human respect before his divine calling and Paul simply called him out on it. It was a reminder from Paul that groupthink is not acceptable in God’s Church. The danger of course is that had Paul not corrected Peter, Peter’s ethnocentric actions could have led to a religious problem and a religio-centric view, as it is suggested happened with Barnabas. The error in example can lead to a reinterpretation of dogmas, which can corrupt the faith. This is the main reason Paul felt it necessary to address the matter with Peter. It was not because he felt strongly about ethnocentrism but rather that this could end up being a danger to the faith.
Groupthink happens when members of a group agree simply to avoid conflict, which is what Peter was doing here. He did not want to upset the Christians who came from the Jewish tradition by sitting with the Christians who came from the Gentile tradition. Peter was not skilled in managing human conflicts in this manner—but it was definitely not an issue of religious faith motivating Peter in this manner. Peter was simply not a strong leader in terms of overcoming conflict among groups. Thus, he engaged in a bit of groupthink with the Jewish Christians, which Paul immediately saw as a major problem because it can lead to disastrous effects in terms of what Christians end up believing religiously. Paul had to act for the good of the faith. If a group is full of yes men they will never let a leader know when he is wrong or when the data contradicts the conclusion that is being sought. Groupthink can kill all communication and relationship building as everyone will simply sign off on whatever the expected or wanted decision is without actually talking about its merits. The Christians who came from the Jewish tradition and the Christians who came from the Gentile tradition would have been divided from the start and the Church never would have grown. The leader and group members can prevent or stop groupthink from occurring by being bold in their pronouncements, just as Paul was. Sometimes people are not even aware of being caught up in groupthink and all it takes is a simple reminder.
How Galatians 2:11-21 Applies to Daily and Ecclesial Life
What Galatians 2:11-21 shows is that a leader should be a good listener and a good communicator. He should also be able to motivate people and boost morale by adhering to the truth and promoting the vision that has been given everyone. A leader has to be able to present the vision to others so that they know what they need to buy into and work towards. This is what Paul did by correcting Peter and by telling about it in his letter to the Galatians. He was showing that sometimes even leaders get off the track by committing the sin of human respect. Paul showed why this was wrong (because it went against the spirit of God) and in doing so he promoted the vision that everyone was expected to share and buy into in order to facilitate the growth of the Church. The leader must be able to communicate that vision using rational terms so that people who are not convinced by it initially can drop their resistance once it is explained to them using logic. Paul did exactly this in his approach to Peter, even though Peter was the head of the Church in terms of earthly authority. Paul showed that even the head of the earthly Church is not above being corrected when he makes a mistake. Peter’s mistake was not in the realm of faith or morals: it was an ethnocentric mistake that would have had grave ramifications in the realm of faith and morals if not corrected, as it would have led to people reinterpreting the teachings of Christ and spirit of God in terms of Peter’s example. Paul saw this danger and thus set about fixing the situation.
Leaders should be emotionally and socially intelligent so that they can empathize with others and communicate most effectively. Paul may come across as brash and bold in his approach to Peter, but it worked with Peter because that is the type of approach Peter always appreciated—the most direct one. When he leaps over the ship to run to Our Lord who is standing in the sea, Peter makes straight for Him. When Peter announces that Christ is Lord, he makes this assertion directly without any prevaricating. Peter is direct and Paul was direct with Peter, understanding that this is the way Peter responds to.
However, not everyone will be of the same mindset as Peter, so it is not necessary for every leader to be so blunt and direct with everyone. A leader should be aware of how to talk to different types of people so that they are not put off by the person’s approach. They should have a number of leadership styles that they can draw upon depending on the environment and situation with which they are faced. A leader such as was Paul should be a critical thinker. Everyone in his own daily life and in his ecclesial life should think critically because there are so many problems and distractions that may not start out being a religious issue but that can easily impact one’s religious practices and beliefs if not addressed.
Thus, what it means to think critically is important to consider. Critical thinking involves the process of seeking out and finding important and relevant information, categorizing and structuring that information so that it can be understood and interpreted contextually, analyzing the data and breaking it down into nuggets for easier interpretation, synthesizing the data so that one can see new patterns and put all the information together in a more meaningful way, and then clarifying what data is most important and focusing attention on that.[footnoteRef:8] The most important skill required in critical thinking, however, is effective listening: individuals have to be very good listeners because that is how the gather information that will help them to make good decisions. Peter shows that he was a good leader overall because he listened to Paul when Paul made his rebuke. Peter did not run away or get angry with Paul for making his criticism. He did not take personal offense. He respected Paul and accepted the criticism after listening to it and thinking about it. He himself demonstrated the ability to think critically at this point, just as Paul demonstrated the ability to think critically in his lead-up to his confrontation with Peter. [8: S. Beebe and J. Masterson. Communicating in small groups (Pearson, 2015), 95.]

Critical thinking is important to communicating in groups because groups can often engage in groupthink, which is the opposite of critical thinking. With groupthink, everyone thinks and believes the same thing. No one wants to think otherwise even if the data is suggesting everyone is wrong. Critical thinkers can explain why the data is saying something else and help to redirect the group to a better solution. Paul simply brought it to Peter’s attention that the message Peter was giving off was a bad one for the reason that it violated the spirit of God.
Every person can apply this lesson in his daily life by remembering why he is a Christian and that Christ comes first in all things. The sin of human respect or of thinking that one culture is better than another is a problem because it focuses too much attention on the person and takes attention away from God where it is due. If one can think critically in this way, one can prevent these mistakes from happening. But it is easy to become distracted by the way of the world and to think that human respect is due to everyone even if it goes against the spirit of God. Paul shows that the spirit of God is to show charity and love to everyone—not to favor one group or custom over another or to believe that it is better to avoid conflict by trying to satisfy one group and avoid the other. That is not how one should lead or think.
Faithfulness to the spirit of God is more important than any human respect or preference for one culture over another, as Paul shows, and as Peter understands when he accepts Paul’s criticism. A way think about this faithfulness is to think about the House of David and how it serves as an example of the spirit of God in and of itself. In the Book of Samuel, David show how he is a person who is after God’s own heart and that by his faithfulness to God, he is in turn rewarded with God’s faithfulness to him (1 Sam 13:14). David is anointed and eventually made the King of the Jews after Saul falls, and after David slays the giant Goliath. David’s victories and his perseverance in the face of persecution show that he is specially supported by God, and David’s continuous faith in God is a testament of the two-way road that faith is: it is never a one-way street, as Joshua reminds his followers once he becomes their leader. If they want God to be faithful to them, they must be faithful to Him and to His commandments. David’s story in 2 Samuel shows this very well. The prophet Nathan receives the promise made to David that through his children a House for the Lord will be built and “I will be his Father, and he shall be My son,” says God to Nathan, who receives this message for David (2 Sam 7:14).[footnoteRef:9] God always demonstrates His faithfulness to those who are faithful to Him.[footnoteRef:10] [9: S. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (UK: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1-10.] [10: Walter C. Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zandorvan, 1995), 20. ]

Aside from the need for faithfulness to the spirit of God, one other key takeaway from Galatians 2:11-21 is the need for the ability to empathize and to engage in empathetic listening as a leader. Paul empathizes with Peter by putting himself in Peter’s shoes and showing to Peter that he understands what he is doing and why. Peter likewise in turn engages in the same type of empathetic listening, which is another reason he is quick to realize his mistake. Empathetic listening is the practice of listening and paying attention to another person by using emotional intelligence to express emotional identification, compassion, and insight to the other person. Empathic listening shows the other person that you are truly hearing them, that you are truly understanding their perspective, that you are truly able to identify with their feelings, and that you appreciate where they are coming from. Paul does this very well for Peter and Peter in turn shows that he has understood and appreciated the message in charity. This type of communicating with others can help in one’s daily life because it helps others to feel validated and valued even if they are doing something wrong and still need to be corrected. Using this type of communication can be an effective way to overcome impasses in a group. Sometimes simply by hearing one out and empathizing with what is being said it opens the door to more expressions and greater appreciation for perspectives. This then creates an environment of respect for truth.
Conclusion
In Galatians 2:11-21, Peter makes the mistake of adopting an ethnocentric view towards the Gentiles on the matter of circumcision. Paul corrects him because the ethnocentric view is a danger to the faith, as it sends a message that the letter of the law matters more than the spirit of the law, which is the spirit of God and the act of the redemption. The communication between Peter and Paul on this matter sets a great example of how one can live one’s daily and ecclesial life by being a critical thinker, avoiding groupthink and speaking with empathy and charity at all times. The more that one can talk to others by always point out that the spirit of God is what matters most, the more one will be able to lead oneself and lead others to God and resist the temptation to fall into the sin of human respect, as Peter does in this instance. Human respect can cause one to deny God, after all, as Peter shows in his own denial of Our Lord during His arrest. Again, it is the same problem here, and Paul correctly sets Peter to rights once more.
Bibliography Beebe, S. and J. Masterson. Communicating in small groups. Pearson, 2015. Hays, Richard B. The Faith of Jesus Christ. Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing, 2002. Johnson, Paul. A History of the Jews. NY: Harper, 1987. Kaiser, Walter C. The Messiah in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zandorvan, 1995. McKenzie, S. King David: A Biography. UK: Oxford University Press, 2000. Mullins, Terence Y. "Jesus, the" Son of David"." Andrews University Seminary Studies (AUSS) 29, no. 2 (1991): 17. Smiles, Vincent M. "The gospel and the law in Galatia: Paul's response to Jewish-Christian separatism and the threat of Galatian apostasy." (1990): 1342-1342. STEP Bible. https://www.stepbible.org/?q=reference=Gal.2&options=NVHUG Wright, Crispin. "The perils of dogmatism." Themes from GE Moore: New essays in epistemology and ethics 25 (2007): 48.