"When Rock came to Antioch I directly withstood him, because he was clearly in the wrong. He had been taking his meals with the Gentiles before others came who were from James. But when they arrived he drew back to avoid trouble with those who were circumcised. The rest of the Jews joined in his dissembling, till even Barnabas was swept away by their pretense. As soon as I observed that they were not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I had this to say to Rock in the presence of all: 'If you who are a Jew are living according to Gentile ways rather than Jewish, by what logic do you force the Gentiles to adopt Jewish ways?' " Galatians 2:11-14 (emphasis and translation of "Cephas" to "Rock" mine.)

The "rebuke" in Galatians is perhaps the primary "proof text" Protestants will use in their attempt to show that Peter/Rock was not "Pope" and was not infallible. How should we Catholics handle the "rebuke"?

The standard Catholic response is to point out that Peter's conduct, although possibly hypocritical and stupid, was not intended as an infallible "ex cathedra" teaching. Good articles explaining the standard Catholic view are Papal Infallibility and The Papacy and Infallibility (the latter being a collection of numerous articles.)

Nevertheless, many Protestants still just don't get it. I will therefore share my thoughts as to how we Catholics might further handle the "rebuke" issue.

While in college in the late 1970's I took a series of Religious Studies courses to round out my History major. One course dealt with the New Testament and New Testament Church. The instructor (Protestant, possibly a minister) used Galatians and other evidence in an attempt to prove that there was a major rift in the Church, symbolized by Peter and Paul. The idea was that Peter represented one camp of Christianity and Paul the other. The instructor left no doubt that Paul represented the correct camp and Peter represented the incorrect camp. Finally, one day I asked a question, the only question I ever asked in that class:

"How do we know that it was Paul who was correct? After all, Peter and Paul were both Apostles...one supposedly saying one thing, the other saying something else. How do we choose between them; decide who is correct?"

The instructor was nonplussed and the class fell silent. The instructor never did answer my question. Apparently nobody ever asked this question before and he had never given it any thought. He simply assumed that Paul was correct.

So, how do we Catholics know that Paul was correct?

The short answer is:

Because Peter said that Paul was correct!

At the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-12). Peter, at the Council, had already infallibly settled the issue! Paul properly "rebuked" Peter/Rock for not following Peter's own teachings. Peter's role at the Jerusalem Council, and the Council itself, help to clearly establish that what was involved in the "rebuke" incident was not Peter's teaching but, at most, Peter's failing to abide by what he already taught and believed.

What about Paul's Hypocrisy?

In Acts 16:1-5, Paul actually had Timothy circumcised...Ouch!...apparently so as not to offend the Jews of that region. The circumcision took place after the matter was settled at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15! Paul's "hypocrisy" would seem a far worse transgression than that of Peter related in Galatians, yet Protestants virtually never bring this up. Why is that? Probably their own hypocrisy and their agenda to tear down the Apostle Peter so as to avoid "Popery".

Why the "Rebuke" of Peter?

I recall reading sometime in the late 1970's a Jehova Witness tract on Peter and the "rebuke". By the time the Jehova Witnesses finished trashing Peter, Peter was not only not "Pope" and not infallible...he was hardly an apostle at all! Virtually all Protestants use the same method in trashing Peter so as to avoid "Popery", to the point that Peter is hardly an apostle at all. In trashing Peter, especially with Paul's "rebuke", Protestants effectively elevate Paul to the Papacy of the New Testament Church. (Indeed, some such as Baptists may use the "dispensational" argument to say that Paul was above Peter!)

Thus, Protestants generally see the "rebuke" as a belittling of Peter, putting him in his place...so to speak. They see Peter as being a fairly ordinary to minor character...even a buffoon. Certainly not the Prince of the Apostles or Pope.

They are wrong.

Peter...Rock...was clearly the most influential Apostle in the Church! As the Galatians quote above shows, even Paul's own man Barnabas was swept away by Peter's influence!

And that was the great danger. Why Paul had to "rebuke" Peter.

Paul "rebuked" Peter not because Peter was insignificant...indeed, if Peter were insignificant no "rebuking" would have been necessary.

Paul had to rebuke Peter...Rock...precisely because of Peter's significance. Peter, more so than any other Apostle, had to be especially careful in how he conducted himself. Peter had to be more careful than even Paul, with Paul's circumcision of Timothy.

Paul also recognized that his ministry was not going anywhere without Peter on board.

Am I serious? Peter said that Paul was correct?

Yes, I'm serious.

Paul, as an Apostle, received his authority and teaching directly from the Lord. As did Peter and the other Apostles. But the situation presented by my old college professor, and apparently the situation in Galatians, involves a situation where two Apostles apparently conflict. How do we determine who is correct?

How do you know that it was Paul who was correct in the "Rebuke" incident?

Yes, Paul was an apostle chosen by Christ. But I firmly believe that Christians, especially the New Testament Church, had to look to Peter and the other Apostles for confirmation of that fact. There was never any question as to Peter's Apostleship...his "denials" of Christ notwithstanding. The same cannot be said of Paul, who often apparently had to defend his Apostleship. Indeed, the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) was apparently called because some in the Antioch Church would not take just Paul's word. The New Testament Church knew Paul was an Apostle because Peter and the other Apostles accepted him...and confirmed Paul's teaching at the Jerusalem Council. If Peter said Paul was out; Paul would be out!

Simple as that.

___________________________________________

Rather than belittling Peter, the "rebuke" incident actually shows the importance of Peter in the Church.

A good article, with insights from St. Jerome suggesting that Peter was merely doing like Paul...being all things to all men, can be found at Peter + Paul + Galatians = Dissent?

Last Update: March 28, 1999

| HOME |