Among the figures of the New Testament, the Apostles Peter and Paul were two of the most influential figures in the development of the early church. However, the relationship between the two is often a subject of debate. A considerable number of modern studies portray Peter and Paul as two figures representing two distinct camps: Peter is seen as upholding a form of Christianity with Jewish characteristics, whilst Paul is seen as the pioneer of a Christianity open to the non-Jewish world. This portrayal is further reinforced when readers encounter the account of Paul’s confrontation with Peter in Antioch (Galatians 2:11–14), which at first glance suggests a sharp conflict between the two.
This view has developed since the 19th century and continues to influence a number of popular works to this day. Some authors even argue that Paul altered Jesus’ teachings and became the “founder of Christianity”, whilst Peter, James and John are regarded as the true successors to Jesus’ ideals. However, does the New Testament actually support this view? Or were the conflicts that arose simply part of the dynamics of a growing church?
The Apostles as Witnesses to Christ
Jesus specifically chose twelve disciples to accompany Him throughout His ministry. They were not merely followers, but eyewitnesses who saw His works, heard His teachings, and witnessed Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection. The tradition concerning the twelve apostles has a strong historical basis as it appears consistently in the Synoptic Gospels and other New Testament writings.
The presence of the twelve apostles played a vital role in the early Church. They served as guarantors of the authenticity of the tradition concerning Jesus at a time when the proclamation was still being passed down orally. Having witnessed first-hand the entire course of Jesus’ ministry, from His baptism to His ascensionto heaven, they played a role in maintaining the continuity between the historical Jesus and the risen Christ.
This is also evident when the apostles sought a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:21–22). The primary requirement for an apostle was to have lived with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry and to have witnessed His resurrection. Thus, the apostleship was, from the outset, closely linked to credible testimony.
Paul and the Legitimacy of his Apostleship
Unlike Peter, Paul was not one of the Twelve. Consequently, almost all his letters begin with the assertion that he is the “apostle of Jesus Christ”. This emphasis is not merely a form of introduction, but a defence of the legitimacy of his ministry.
Paul states that his calling came directly from God, not through human appointment or the approval of the apostles in Jerusalem. In Galatians 1:1 he emphasises that he is an apostle “not from men, nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.” Thus, the authority of his preaching does not depend on human recognition, but on a divine calling.
This assertion arose because his status as an apostle was frequently called into question by his. As someone who had never followed Jesus during His ministry in Galilee, Paul was considered unqualified to be an apostle. That is why he repeatedly emphasised that the risen Christ had appeared to him (1 Corinthians 15:5–8). These appearances formed the basis for his inclusion amongst the witnesses to the resurrection.
Thus, Paul did not place himself outside the community of the apostles, but understood himself as an apostle called directly by Christ to serve the non-Jewish nations.
Paul and the Leading Figures of the Church in Jerusalem
Although he emphasised the independence of his calling, Paul never severed ties with the church leaders in Jerusalem. In Galatians 1:18–19 he recounts that three years after his conversion he went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Peter) and stayed with him for fifteen days. He also met James, the Lord’s brother.
This visit demonstrates that Paul valued the authority of eyewitnesses. Indeed, the Greek word historeō used in Galatians carries the meaning of investigating or studying in depth. Whilst in Jerusalem, Paul had the opportunity to become more familiar with the traditions concerning Jesus preserved by Peter as one of the principal eyewitnesses.
This relationship reveals an interesting balance. Paul maintained the independence of his apostleship, whilst still recognising the importance of his relationship with Peter, James and John as the “pillars of the church”. He did not regard himself as their opponent, but rather as a fellow worker with a different calling.
The Jerusalem Council and the Division of Ministry
The main issue facing the early church was not a question of who held the greatest authority, but rather how to accept non-Jews into the people of God. The issues of circumcision, kosher food, and the observance of the Torah became highly sensitive issues as they were linked to the identity of the nation of Israel.
The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) marked a pivotal moment in the history of the church. At that council, it was agreed that Paul and Barnabas would continue their ministry to the Gentiles, whilst Peter, together with the leaders in Jerusalem, would focus more on the Jewish people. This division did not represent a split of the church into two factions, but rather a division of the focus of their ministry.
The council also affirmed that non-Jewish nations were not required to undergo circumcision to become followers of Christ. Instead, Paul was urged to continue caring for thethe poor as an expression of solidarity within the body of Christ. This agreement demonstrates that the early church was able to find common ground without compromising the diversity of its ministry.
The Conflict in Antioch: A Dispute or a Difference of Interpretation?
The Events at Antioch (Galatians 2:11–14) are often cited as evidence that Peter and Paul were at odds with one another. Paul recounts that Peter had previously been dining with non-Jews, but subsequently withdrew after some people from James’s circle arrived. According to Paul, this behaviour was not in keeping with the truth of the Gospel.
Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that only Paul’s account is available. The New Testament does not record Peter’s response to these events. Consequently, many scholars consider that this conflict should not be understood as a permanent feud, but rather as an incident within the dynamics of the early church.
From Paul’s perspective, Peter’s actions were seen as re-establishing a barrier between Jews and non-Jews. Conversely, some commentators argue that Peter may have been seeking to maintain the effectiveness of his ministry to Jews, who remained highly sensitive to issues of ritual purity. In other words, what was at issue was not the Gospel itself, but rather how the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem were applied in a concrete situation. Therefore, the conflict is more accurately understood as a difference in pastoral interpretation rather than a fundamental theological disagreement.
Partnering for the Advancement of the Gospel
The New Testament shows that Peter and Paul had complementary callings. Peter served as the link between the church and the historical Jesus, whilst preserving the Jewish roots of Christianity. Conversely, Paul pioneered the mission to the non-Jewish nations and paved the way for the spread of the Gospel throughout the Mediterranean world.
Differences in character, background and ministry strategy do not prevent both from being part of the same work of God. In fact, the tensions that arose actually prompted the church to clarify its understanding of the universality of the Gospel. Christianity was no longer viewed merely as one group within Judaism, but as good news intended for all nations.
Thus, the question ‘who won?’ does not, in fact, find its answer in the persons of Paul or Peter. It is the Gospel of Christ itself that triumphs, continually transcending ethnic, cultural and traditional boundaries to reach all people.
Conclusion
The relationship between Paul and Peter cannot be reduced to a tale of rivalry between two great church leaders. Although they experienced tensions at times, both remained united in their calling as apostles of Christ. Peter safeguarded the continuity of the church through the testimony of eyewitnesses, whilst Paul carried the Gospel beyond the boundaries of Judaism to the wider world.
Their story shows that, from the very beginning, the Church was not founded without differences of opinion. Indeed, it is through dialogue, struggle and even conflict—managed responsibly—that the Church has come to understand more fully the breadth of God’s work of salvation. Therefore, the greatest legacy of Paul and Peter is not their debates, but their shared testimony that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is good news for all nations. In that light, the two are more accurately understood not as rivals, but as partners in God’s work for the world.
This material is based on the LAI Bible Seminar “PAUL AND PETER: RIVALS OR PARTNERS?”: https://www.youtube.com/live/Bxe6uhmjha0?si=OvQObQWr5ks7Ij7y
