1. A Problematic Textual Legacy

Μὴ δὲ αὕτη ὑμᾶς θορυβείτω ἡ λέξις,Footnote ¹ John Chrysostom counsels his hearers in his commentary on Galatians when addressing a portion of Gal 2.11–14, the passage in which Paul recounts that earlier he had opposed Cephas to his face in Antioch for his ‘hypocrisy’ (ὑπόκρισις) about eating with Gentiles and Jews. This text was a thorn in the side for Christian exegetes from very early on, a problem that could not be avoided, but required a solution, not just because of the outright conflict reported between the two foundational figures, but because the charge at issue between them in this passage—hypocrisy—could undermine the whole religious movement with which they are associated. As John puts it, ‘Those who read this passage in the epistle literally (or: “in a simple-minded way”: ἁπλῶς) suppose that Paul is accusing Peter of hypocrisy’.Footnote ² Not too few, but perhaps too many solutions were offered by early exegetes, each of which engendered its own set of problems that in turn required attention and defense against the ‘plain-sense’ implication of the Christian scriptural record: that either Cephas the accused, or Paul his accuser—or both of them—could be branded ‘hypocrites’.

The present paper highlights some of the dynamics and the stakes involved in the legacy of this text about charges of apostolic hypocrisy in non-ChristianFootnote ³ and inner-Christian authors, and then provides a detailed analysis of a complex and under-studied source on this question, John Chrysostom's occasional homily, In faciem ei restiti,Footnote ⁴ preached during his time as presbyter in Antioch (386–398 CE). In this homily John not only grapples with the imputed ‘hypocrisy’ of Peter and Paul, but also that of the Christian reader who hears this text and, swept up in its powerful rhetoric, celebrates Paul's rebuke without realizing that it involves a betrayal of Peter, and hence of the foundation upon which he or she stands. But John has an ingenious solution to the problem, one that involves a bit of ‘play-acting’ of his own.

We begin with the initial problematic passage that Paul penned as part of the argument of his Letter to the Galatians in the early 50s:

Although he was surely not the first to notice the problem, a third- or fourth-century ‘pagan’ critic of ChristianityFootnote ⁵ astutely—and at length—articulated the dimensions of the problem of two apparent ‘hypocrites’ at the foundation of Christianity:

Macarius's opponent, ‘the Greek’, here has engaged in a canonical reading of the NT scriptures, and in particular the letters of Paul and Acts, as well as the gospels, in order to construct a set of concrete proofs of the fact that neither of the foundational figures of the Christian movement was trustworthy, but both were ‘hypocrites’—by which he means play-acting prevaricators whose unstable identities, as evidenced by their contradictory actions, rendered them utterly unreliable spokesmen for the divine. It is an unacknowledged irony, of course, that the word of the same Paul whom he is about to call a habitual liar is, in the earlier case of Peter, taken as a reliable witness stating the simple plain truth when he accuses Cephas of hypocrisy. In this reading ‘the Greek’ surprisingly stands with almost—but not quite—all Christian readers.

2. Dynamics of the Problem

It was a customary tactic of ancient polemics to transform inner-group invective into external accusation.Footnote ¹⁰ Galatians 2.12–14 was an embarrassment for Christian authors because it presented textual evidence of a ‘face off’ between the two apostolic chiefs of the primordial period. One solution to it was the deliberate fashioning of the myth of the concordia apostolorum, in compelling narrative form by Luke in the early second century in the Acts of the Apostles,Footnote ¹¹ as well as in the later epistolary pseudepigrapha of the Paulinist school—both those in the name of Paul and those that would become the ‘Catholic Epistles’ (including those purportedly by Peter and James).Footnote ¹² However, the author of Acts, in trying to undo one contentious charge of ‘hypocrisy’, opened the door to many more, especially by introducing episodes of Paul's accommodation to the Law (e.g. 16.1–3; 18.18; 21.23–26).

The embarrassment of Gal 2.11–14, even in the face of the powerful harmonizing narrative of Acts which would form its interpretive backdrop for most readers, would become even more acute later, as Peter and Paul become the foundational figures (Romulus and Remus) or guardians (Castor and Pollux) of the New Rome.Footnote ¹³ The twinning of the figures of Peter and Paul and their connections to Rome (a process begun in 1 Clem. 5) will become tremendously important in the Christian imperium. A figure like John Chrysostom (the ultimate subject of this essay) from Antioch can refer to these two apostles' entombed bodies as the great eyes that shine in the body of the church at Rome.Footnote ¹⁴ But how can he deal with the fact that, according to the Letter to the Galatians, they did not stand eye to eye, but face to face, opposed?

Before we look at possible solutions, we should appreciate the gravity of the problem. Galatians 2.11–14 represented such a thorny issue because, as early Christian scriptures are read by educated Christian thinkers and by contemporary philosophers in the second century and beyond, they look for a consistency in the foundational teachings, on the one hand, and between the word and deeds of the teachers, on the other. The cultural cocktail of concerns within which this charge of primordial Christian ‘hypocrisy’ will be debated includes the following elements:

1. a. Internal religious invective within first-century Judaism (e.g. Matt 6.2–5; 23.13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29, etc.; cf. Job 36.13 LXX) on religious ὑποκριταί,Footnote ¹⁵ which will become external religious invective used later by self-identified ‘Christians’ against Jews conceived as the other (on the one hand) and internal religious invective against ‘heretics’ (on the other hand). If the primordial figures are guilty of precisely the charge that is used to define Christians over and against others, this ‘hypocrisy about hypocrisy’ could be a fatal blow to the religious group's entire legitimacy.

2. b. Ubiquitous Hellenistic topoi (in popular philosophy,Footnote ¹⁶ in literary criticism, in cultural evaluation of figures like Odysseus)Footnote ¹⁷ about saying one thing and doing another; saying one thing and meaning another; the good and bad σχῆμα or ‘cloaking’ of the truth, either for aesthetic, rhetorical, pedagogical or duplicitous reasons.

3. c. Further associated topoi about flattery (κολακεία), and free versus servile speech and behavior, the latter especially connected with ‘pleasing others’ (ἀρέσκεια).

These are, of course, longstanding and much-debated preoccupations of Hellenistic culture, ones made even more pressing in the Christian inheritance by Paul's emphasis on surface versus depth-reality in religious identity (especially on the manifest Jew and the Jew in secret in Rom 2.17–29). Associated with this is an interpretive disjunction of letter and spirit/flesh and spirit (Rom 2.29, with 2 Cor 3.6) that will serve as a Christianized version of the letter/intent topos of ancient rhetorical literary criticism.Footnote ¹⁸ The hermeneutics of surface and depths, of apparent and real meaning, will be the vehicle Chrysostom uses for dealing with this problematic text in Galatians, even as it describes the serious threat it poses—of an illicit disjunction between appearance and reality at the wellspring of the Christian tradition.

3. Various Early Christian Solutions to Paul's Charge Against Peter's ‘Hypocrisy’Footnote ¹⁹

Aside from those who solved the problem by championing either Paul (so Marcion) or Peter (so the Pseudo-Clementines) against the other, among those who attempted to retain the authoritative status of both Peter and Paul four major lines of interpretation of Gal 2.11–14 are customarily identified:Footnote ²⁰

1. a. ‘Cephas’ is someone else, not Peter (Clement of Alexandria apud Eusebius historia ecclesiastica 1.12.1).

2. b. Peter and Paul did disagree, but it was not so severe, since it was only about a point of behavior (specifically, conversatio), not about the gospel proclamation (praedicatio) (Tertullian Praescr. 23.10). Like Peter, Paul was variable in his behavior; the apostles all knew that variable behaviors should be judged according to basic historical factors such as the times, the persons and the contingent circumstances (Praescr. 24.3, pro temporibus et personis et causis).

3. c. It was a feigned quarrel (Jerome comm. in Gal. and Ep. 112,11 [=Augustine Ep. 75] called it a utilis simulatio, invoking among other authorities Chrysostom and Origen,Footnote ²¹ who termed it οἰκονομία/oikonomia, συγκατάβασις/synkatabasis, ‘adaptation’, ‘accommodation’ to the weak). Peter pretended to side with the Jewish-Christians on the matter of observance of the Law (though their position was wrong) to allow Paul to issue the proper rebuke through his example and silent acquiescence to the critique.Footnote ²²

4. d. It was a genuine rebuke that Peter nobly accepted from Paul (Augustine). Peter's error was not that he colluded with the Jewish-Christians' keeping the Law (which was in fact acceptable for them in that early era), but that he did not clearly articulate that they did so only in honor of ancestral traditions, not because it had any salvific power. Further, Jerome's solution, of a utilis simulatio or dispensatio, would require apostolic mendacium, which is out of the question (and would be worse than the alleged hypocrisy, because it calls into question the trustworthiness of the scriptures).Footnote ²³

4. Chrysostom's In illud, in faciem ei restiti

Jerome's rounds of disputes with Augustine on this passage are well known, and have been carefully analyzed.Footnote ²⁴ What has not been appreciated is that John Chrysostom's position on this passage (which Jerome claimed as an ally to his view that it was a ‘feigned quarrel’)Footnote ²⁵ was given a different cast and presentation in the Antiochene's own occasional homily on this passage, as compared with his commentary on Galatians.Footnote ²⁶ The homily shows better than the commentary that Chrysostom was well aware of how vulnerable his own interpretation was, and of why it was so important—especially in the face of ‘pagan’ critique—that Christians have a fully convincing solution to the potential and severe disqualification that this passage seemed to offer to the Christian movement. Through a deft combination of selective historical argumentation and rhetorical ingenuity, Chrysostom seeks to address not just the hypocrisy of Peter and Paul, but also the sticky problem of the hypocrisy of the Christian reader who reads this text approvingly as Paul's ‘in your face’ to Peter.

John begins this homily with a customary prooimion, in this case focusing on how sorely grieved he was—like a child being weaned from its mother—when separated from his congregation for the last synaxis, even though he was brought news and some of the eucharist to share with them from a distance. John uses this introduction to summon his audience to show the same eagerness (προθυμία, σπουδή) for listening to his homily that they have shown before:

Chrysostom calls his audience to vigilance, for the stakes here are high. Next he goes further, and incorporates their reader response into his interpretive task with a question:

The kinds of accusations that are being waged against these two ‘fathers’ of the Christian movement that John mentions here are precisely of the sort that Macarius Magnes's ‘Greek’ hurled—that both Peter and Paul were ‘hypocrites’. Chrysostom will mount an argument of defense (ἀπολογία), but before he does, he implicates his hearers in the problem, addressing them directly with the assumption that they read this text too credulously:

The audience of Christian believers in the ἐκκλησία παλαιά at Antioch that dayFootnote ³⁰ has a stark choice—praise or shame—when faced with a text that seems to require them to side with one apostle (the speaking one) over the other (the silent one). John offers a third way. He outlines his plan for his unorthodox defense speech for the apostolic duo, a plan that requires him to adopt a fictional role himself.Footnote ³¹ He is going to engage in prosopopoiia—a dissimulation of his own, acting as the lawyer arraigning Paul for the faults associated with his accusation against Peter. But Chrysostom's audience is forewarned about the pretense: ‘I am not really directing my speech at Paul, but at the outsiders. Therefore I urge you to listen carefully!’Footnote ³² Adopting with ironic purpose a conventional rhetorical strategy known to us from the technai and progymnasmata, αὔξησις,Footnote ³³ John promises first to amplify the accusation (αὐξάνειν τὴν κατηγορίαν), and make it worse, in order to arouse his audience's zeal for the right mode of defense, ἀπολογία, against it. His defense involves demonstrating that the scriptural text, and the words in it, have a meaning deeper than its ‘plain-sense’. The language that he uses for this interpretive move is most fascinating for one supposed to be an ‘Antiochene literalist’:

Two forms of contrast between surface and reality are in view here—that between John's own words and his real intent, on the one hand, and the words of Galatians 2 and their deeper meaning, on the other. No wonder these late fourth-century Antiochenes are exhorted to stay awake! But the reward, the preacher promises, will be great, because the ‘apparent battle’ (ἡ δοκοῦσα μάχη) that took place in their fair city long ago will redound to their praises, for the ostensive conflict was ‘more useful than any peace’. The goal of the homily is to show that, not only is the Antioch incident no proof of apostolic adversity, but that—when interpreted correctly—it is the greatest proof that Peter and Paul were ‘bound together with one another by the bonds of love’.Footnote ³⁵

In the first section of proof, Chrysostom plays the prosecutor, out to demonstrate that ‘the things said by Paul [in Gal 2.11–14] are a strong accusation (κατηγορία) unless we track down the meaning hidden in the words (ἂν μὴ τὸν ἐναποκεκρυμμένον τοῖς ῥήμασι θηρεύσωμεν νοῦν)’.Footnote ³⁶ This begins with direct address to Paul,Footnote ³⁷ invoked as present and subject to cross-examination:

Chrysostom chides Paul for giving his reproof in public, which is contrary to the teaching of Christ in Matt 18.15. He characterizes the public nature of what Paul did in Gal 2.11–14 in the strongest possible terms; not only did Paul give a public rebuke, but he boasted about doing it (μέγα φρονεῖς), and not just orally and not just to a few people:

This extreme violation of Christ's command to rebuke in private by Paul's epistolary advertising campaign includes also direct hypocrisy on Paul's part (i.e. saying one thing and doing another), since it looks like the act arose from ethical failings of just the type that Paul himself characterizes as ἔργα τῆς σαρκός later in the letter (Gal 5.19–21): ‘Who would not say that you do this from enmity (ἀπέχθεια), from jealousy (φθόνος) and contentiousness (φιλονεικία)?’

And now comes the coup de grâce accusation, that, in condemning Cephas for accommodating the weakness of the believers about dietary halachah, Paul sounds utterly contradictory to his own claims in 1 Cor 9.19–23:

The accused (Paul) is allowed to respond:

The ‘prosecutor’ accepts that explanation, but counters: ‘Then do you show such care and magnanimity (φιλάνθρωπος) for the disciples, but for a fellow-apostle you are so inhumane (ἀπάνθρωπος ἐγένου)?’ John adds a further comparison to strengthen the point of inconsistency between treatment of disciples and apostles: when Paul came to Jerusalem the apostles there granted him a private hearing over his gospel (κατ' ἰδίαν, Gal 2.2),Footnote ⁴² and did not parade him in public. Paul's violation is all the more egregious since this is precisely the apostolic courtesy he did not give to Peter. By multiplying these arguments (in much the same fashion as did Macarius's ‘Greek’) Chrysostom makes the accusation against Paul, the strident public accuser, seem more and more heinous … if true.

Leaving aside for a moment the manner in which Paul reproved Peter, John (as the putative Pauline prosecutor) next turns to the charge itself. Is it even categorically possible that Paul was right, and Peter did play the hypocrite out of fear?

Surely Paul does not want to contradict Christ's assessment of Peter's character, does he? After this opening, Chrysostom trots out proof after proof,Footnote ⁴⁴ mostly from Acts, of Peter's extraordinary bravery. Most important for John is that Peter was the first to speak up in the theatre of Jerusalem and proclaim the resurrection (Acts 2.24, 34–35). He stood up against the crowds of ‘Jews’ in Jerusalem, proving himself to be a man of completely free and bold speech (ἐλευθεροστομία, παρρησία), who bravely opened the door for all the rest of the apostles who would follow (including you, Paul). This courage exemplified by Peter was seen even before the crucifixion,Footnote ⁴⁵ and all the more so after it. Chrysostom sharpens this point both by augmenting the invective against ‘the Jews’ in Acts as ‘bloodthirsty dogs’ ‘boiling with zeal’ and ‘breathing murder’,Footnote ⁴⁶ and then by two then-and-now comparisons. First, the ‘Jews’ who before Christ's crucifixion sought to put anyone who confessed him outside the synagogue (John 9.22) were now, when Peter confronted them in Acts 2 after the death and resurrection, all the more vicious. Second, how could this man who was so brave in the hostile territory of Jerusalem be a coward in Antioch, χριστιανικωτάτη πόλις (‘the most Christian city’) seventeen yearsFootnote ⁴⁷ later?Footnote ⁴⁸ By assembling this body of evidence for Peter's bravery, Chrysostom has constructed a proof against the truth of the literal sense of Paul's account of the Antioch incident as we have it in Gal 2.11–14. Given this litany of brave deeds, ‘How can you dare to say that “out of fear of those from the circumcision he was withdrawing and separating himself”?’Footnote ⁴⁹

Chrysostom applies good historical-critical criteria to his assessment of whether or not the event could possibly have occurred as stated. He concludes that the charge is simply not credible (… οὐκ ἔστι πιθανὴ ἡ κατηγορία) because

So what is the solution (λύσις) to the apparent problem (ἡ δοκοῦσα ζήτησις)? Pronouncing the first part of his proof complete (‘our argument has overturned the accusation’Footnote ⁵¹ against Peter on the basis of improbability), John returns to the twin apologetic concern:

Can it be the case that Paul accused Peter out of enmity (ἀπέχθεια) for his fellow-apostle, or out of vainglory (κενοδοξία) or contentiousness (φιλονεικία)? ‘No one could possibly say this—no way!’Footnote ⁵⁴ The first counter-proof is Paul's apostolic humility, in that he saw himself as a ‘slave to all the apostles’ (although he exceeded all by his labors), and the least of them (1 Cor 15.9). And not only his words, but his deeds show this. In particular, despite the fact that Paul had been entrusted with care for ἐκκλησίαι throughout the whole world, and faced constant battles—not only with people, but with powers, principalities and forces of darkness for the salvation of humanity—he left all these aside and went up to Jerusalem expressly to see Peter (Gal 1.18). And what's more, he stayed there for 15 whole days! This is proof of his εὔνοια and φιλοφροσύνη for his fellow apostle.Footnote ⁵⁵

In the next movement of the speech (after again counseling his audience to stay with him in this long speech),Footnote ⁵⁶ Chrysostom offers his own version of the myth of concordant Christian origins.Footnote ⁵⁷ He begins with the state of affairs right after Christ went up to heaven (Acts 1.9) after leaving a (singular) word of teaching (ὁ λόγος τῆς διδασκαλίας) behind to his own apostles. Now all humanity had a single nature (φύσις), and there was no αἵρεσις on the face of the earth, John wistfully recalls; there were no Manichaeans, no Marcionites, no Valentinians or others. All the inhabitants of the world were either Jews or Greeks, so Christ, like a wise king (βασιλεύς), divided his squadron in two, setting one portion under the leadership of Peter, to the Jews, and the other under that of Paul, to the Gentiles (Gal 2.8). After explaining the metonymy of περιτομή for Jews, John emphasizes that all humanity had the same nature, and the king (Christ) is one, so the distinction between the two missions is ἐν σχήματι μικρῷ τινι τῆς σαρκὸς, οὐκ ἐν τῇ τῆς οὐσίας ἐναλλαγῇ (‘in a minor feature of the flesh, but not in a variation of nature’).Footnote ⁵⁸

This insistence on the unity of the gospel proclamation leads John into a lengthy excursus on an anticipated objection—why was not Paul, rather than the illiterate fisherman Peter, the one who was entrusted with preeminent leadership (προστασία) over the Jews, given his deep training in the ancestral laws, his education at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22.3) and blamelessness according to the righteousness in the Law (Phil 3.6)? John's polemical answer is that this was Christ's special calling to Paul in view of Jewish opposition to him (Acts 22.19–21). Paul's keen ability to examine the nature (φύσις) and logical progression (ἀκολουθία) of realities, John argues, would have been lost on the Jews, who are ‘more ignorant than all people’ (πάντων…ἀγνωμονέστεροι), not looking at probability (τὸ εἰκός), reason (τὸ εὔλογον) or necessity (τὸ ἀναγκαῖον), but only with a view to their own love for contention (φιλονεικία). For John, Paul's philosophical acumen (thus described) would presumably be lost on ‘Jews’,Footnote ⁵⁹ and thus he was sent to the Gentiles.Footnote ⁶⁰ Now, John allows, Paul had great love for his own people (as Rom 9.3; 10.1 show), and did try to teach Jews, such as in the Letter to the Hebrews, but he did so there without employing his usual epistolary prescript, instead writing that letter anonymously, as though with a ‘mask’ (προσωπεῖον) over his face, hiding his identity.Footnote ⁶¹ So Paul customarily approaches Gentiles undisguised with the gospel message and instruction, but Jews under cover, each strategy designed for maximum persuasiveness.

Chrysostom emphasizes that there was one κήρυγμαFootnote ⁶² shared alike by Peter to Jews and Paul to Gentiles. The only difference was in the observance of food laws, circumcision and ‘the other Jewish customs’ (τὰ ἄλλα τὰ Ἰουδαϊκὰ ἔθη). Peter in dealing with his Jewish disciples did not dare to tell them φανερῶς καὶ διαρρήδην (‘openly and explicitly’) that they must put away these things all at once (καθάπαξ). He knew that they were like a tender planting standing next to an ancient tree (John's metaphor for their long-time prior disposition for the Law [ἡ χρονία ἡ περὶ τὸν νόμον πρόληψις]); if he plucked out that dead tree too soon, the young faith might be uprooted with it. So Peter by concession allowed these Jewish converts to keep some of these old customs. Paul, meanwhile, did not have to do this, since he was preaching to Gentiles who never did have this πρόληψις (‘predisposition’).

But in fact both Peter and Paul engaged in ‘concession to the weakness of the disciples’ (τῇ τῶν μαθητῶν ἀσθενείᾳ συγκαταβαίνοντες) in the matter of the Law. Paul did this in Jerusalem, where he followed Jewish customs when the occasion (καιρός) required (Acts 21.20–26), not because of a change in judgment or intent (γνώμη), but by way of accommodation (οἰκονομία). Not coincidentally,Footnote ⁶³ it was in that same city that Peter in turn ‘legislated the same freedom from the Law’ (τὴν αὐτὴν ἐλευθερίαν νομοθετῶν) which Paul was proclaiming to the Gentiles. Peter did this when he could see that the καιρός had come to dispense with that concession and to hand over the teaching in pure and unadulterated fashionFootnote ⁶⁴ (Acts 15.7, 10–11). Peter offered this teaching openly with Paul present, and he even wrote it down in a letter that Paul carried around (the so-called ‘apostolic decree’), so Paul knew well Peter's position; therefore why does he now accuse him (in Gal 2.12) of having acted ‘out of fear of those from the circumcision’?

The preacher urges his audience one more time to hold their attention just a little while more, as they have now arrived at ‘the very depths of the solution’ (πρὸς γὰρ αὐτὸ τὸ βάθος τῆς λύσεως κατηντήσαμεν). First it requires rehearsal of the history (ἱστορία) as a background for comprehending the actions. According to Chrysostom, the Jewish believers at Antioch, because they were so far away from the mother-city of Jerusalem, gradually fell away from Ἰουδαϊκαὶ παρατηρήσεις and hence by attrition already were holding to the καθαρὰ καὶ ἀνόθευτος τῆς πίστεως διδασκαλία (‘pure and genuine teaching of the faith’, i.e. the Law-free gospel). So, when Peter went there, he saw that (unlike the Jewish believers in Jerusalem) they did not need any συγκατάβασις, and so he joined them in ‘living like a Gentile’ (ἐθνικῶς ἔζη). But when the Jews from James came (which, for Chrysostom, means Jewish believers from Jerusalem), they had never seen Jews behaving apart from the Law (ἑτέρως πολιτεύεσθαι). Peter could see that these visitors were still weak (ἀσθενέστερον διακείμενοι ἔτι) and out of fear—not of them, but for them, lest they become scandalized and leave the faithFootnote ⁶⁵—he changed his tack (μετετάξατο) again, leaving aside his Gentile lifestyle and returning to his former concession (ἐπὶ τὴν προτέραν συγκατάβασιν ἦλθε) by observing the food laws.Footnote ⁶⁶

John now rereads the text in full aloud, with his interspersed commentary, to anchor this way of reconstructing the history. But he is still not completely satisfied with this argument by appeal to the history. The ‘apparent accusation’ (τὸ δοκοῦν ἔγκλημα) of hypocrisy remains a problem he has not yet fully resolved. How will he rebut it in full?

First John names other solutions (such as that this Peter is another person, or that Paul rightly rebuked Peter), but only to refute them, the first by exegesis, and the second by the apologetic concern announced at the outset to rescue both apostles from censure.Footnote ⁶⁸ He returns to his opening refrain that what must be sought is a solution that exonerates both apostles from accusation.Footnote ⁶⁹ For this there is only one possible method. True meaning must be hidden, behind text and behind action, in motive, but it is accessible ‘if we learn the intention (γνώμη) with which the one rebuked and the other was rebuked, and unfurl its very meaning (διάνοια)’.Footnote ⁷⁰ Peter wanted to free the people from James from the Law, but the two apostles realized that these believers from Jerusalem would not have accepted a direct statement from Peter to that effect, because they would retort that he (Peter) was in effect a hypocrite, proclaiming in public things that contradict both his words and his prior actions (ὡς ἐναντία ἑαυτῷ δημηγορῶν, καὶ τοῖς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ γεγενημένοις ἅπασι κατὰ τὸν ἔμπροσθεν χρόνον).Footnote ⁷¹ On the other hand, they would not have listened to Paul, because they had a deep aversion to him due to his reputation (Acts 21.21). So what could they do?

Neither of them directly rebuked those who came from James, but instead Peter arranged with Paul in advance (παρασκευάζειν) to reprove him in an exaggerated fashion (μεθ' ὑπερβολῆς) and attack him, so that this ‘fabricated rebuke (ἐπίπλαστος ἐπιτίμησις) might offer a just opportunity and pretext for boldness against them’ (δικαίαν αὐτῷ παῤῥησίας κατ' ἐκείνων ἀφορμὴν παρέχῃ καὶ πρόφασιν).Footnote ⁷² Both Peter and Paul knew the truth, which resided in each other's shared γνώμη about the Law. The silence (σιγή) of Peter, Chrysostom argues, was more effective than the tongue (γλῶττα) of Paul to correct those who came from James, and also return the Jewish believers at Antioch to their original position.

The apostolic collusion which Chrysostom imagines was not a ruse or prevarication. It was a deliberate plan based on the apostles' common understanding (γνώμη)Footnote ⁷³ of the Law-free gospel, and their sage recognition that the Jewish believers from Jerusalem would not accept a direct rebuke from either of them.

John ‘unfurls’ the true γνώμη of Peter from his silence. On this account, Paul is not Peter's adversary, but his interpreter.Footnote ⁷⁵ Paul becomes the spokesman for both apostles and for both parts of his fellow apostle, Peter—by attesting to his words and his deeds. Paul brings Peter's full hidden judgment out into viewFootnote ⁷⁶ (where it is met with a silence of acquiescence) and he proves the case by invoking Peter's own prior lifestyle.

Because the two apostles were united in this single γνώμη, there is no ground for accusation against either or against both. Further, since Paul wrote down this account in the Letter to the Galatians by this same γνώμη that led him to issue the revealing rebuke, there is no fault in it, but rather great benefit, extending from the people of James to the Galatians and to all readers down through time.Footnote ⁷⁷ After this very long homily the preacher pronounces his work a success: ‘thus through our homily each of the apostles has been freed from accusations (ἐγκλήματα) and shown worthy of a myriad of praises (ἐγκώμια)’.Footnote ⁷⁸ The homily ends with a call to emulate this holy ὁμόνοια.