EXCEPT!
That is not what St Paul says.
"6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."
His terminology makes it very clear that while there were SOME who considered James, Peter, and John to be pillars - "who seemed to be something" - Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did NOT.
I spent 25 years in the hierarchy known as the US military. I assure you, these are NOT the words of someone who considered Peter to be first among equals, let alone superior in any way. While some were looking at these 3 as something higher or more authoritative, Paul did not.
Peter was engaging in the sin of ethnic bigotry, and St. Paul correctly corrected him, although this was not a doctrinal dispute, but a pastoral correction.
No sir. This was most decidedly a DOCTRINAL issue - one so critical that Paul uses it as an example leading up to his conclusion, "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”
Nor, as some have suggested, was Peter only setting a bad example. For Paul told him, "why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" Not ask, or allow - but COMPEL.
Also, we read: "certain men came from James...he withdrew...fearing those who were of the circumcision."
Again, I'm a military man. A 4-star General does not fear a delegation from a 2-star General. The reverse is true.
Mr Rogers:
In no way was St. Paul refuting St. Peter’s office as an Apostle, you are reading what you want to read in the text. I stand by my original statement that what St. Peter was guilty of, was sin, not a doctrine. And in no way was St. Paul preaching something that was not in conformity with what the other Apostles preached. IT seems in Galations 2,that St. Paul is claiming that it was his argument that won the the day with respect to Gentile Converts not being circumcized. However, in Acts 15: 7-11, the credit is given to Peter. Regardless, the fact is that gentile converts were not circumcized, before being baptized into the Church. This was the main doctrinal point. The fact that Peter would not participate in fellowship/communion with the gentiles, is not a doctrine. It could be stated that Peter was being hypocritical [which later, St. Paul states c.f. Gal 2:13], or in fact, engaging an sinful and uncharitable behavior and Paul corrected him.
Pauls statement about James, Kephas, and John being reputed pillars is a statement that he [Paul] is not overawed by the prestige that the 3 original apostles had as being eyewitnesses to Christ life. It in no way challenged them or their authority as such. Nor, did the dispute over the dietary laws, documented in Acts 15 and Galations 1 and 2, cause St. Paul to break communion with the Church. The Letter to the Galatians was after St. Paul visited that area (c.f. Acts 16 and Acts 18) and in Acts 21, we see St. Paul going to visit St. James, who was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. So again, whatever you say about the dispute in Acts 15, also recorded in Galatians 1, Paul did not break communion with the other Apostles.
Regards