Paul does not accuse Peter of malice or ignorance, but of lack of principle,
in that he abstained from meats, because he feared the Jews that came from
James. Peter's weak attitude endangered the principle of Christian liberty.
It is the deduction rather than the fact which Paul reproves. To eat and to
drink, or not to eat and drink, is immaterial. But to make the deduction "If
you eat, you sin; if you abstain you are righteous"--this is wrong.

Meats may be refused for two reasons. First, they may be refused for the sake
of Christian love. There is no danger connected with a refusal of meats for
the sake of charity. To bear with the infirmity of a brother is a good thing.
Paul himself taught and exemplified such thoughtfulness. Secondly, meats may
be refused in the mistaken hope of thereby obtaining righteousness. When this
is the purpose of abstaining from meats, we say, let charity go. To refrain
from meats for this latter reason amounts to a denial of Christ. If we must
lose one or the other, let us lose a friend and brother, rather than God, our
Father.

Jerome, who understood not this passage, nor the whole epistle for that
matter, excuses Peter's action on the ground "that it was done in ignorance."
But Peter offended by giving the impression that he was indorsing the Law. By
his example he encouraged Gentiles and Jews to forsake the truth of the
Gospel. If Paul had not reproved him, there would have been a sliding back of
Christians into the Jewish religion, and a return to the burdens of the Law.

It is surprising that Peter, excellent apostle that he was, should have been
guilty of such vacillation. In a former council at Jerusalem he practically
stood alone in defense of the truth that salvation is by faith, without the
Law. Peter at that time valiantly defended the liberty of the Gospel. But now
by abstaining from meats forbidden in the Law, he went against his better
judgment. You have no idea what danger there is in customs and ceremonies.