“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face,
because he was to be blamed.” Gal2:11
Paul’s intent in writing this is to show that Peter did not
honor the consensus they had reached in Jerusalem. While in Jerusalem they had
agreed not to allow any ritualistic or moralistic additions to the gospel.
Peter was being a hypocrite by siding with the legalistic Judaizers against the
Gentiles.
He of all people knew full well that food laws were abolished in the
new covenant because he had received a revelation directly from the Lord
concerning this when he was in Joppa. (Acts 10:9-23).
However, considering that Peter was sometimes
fickle and easily influenced by others, like the time when he denied Jesus in Matthew26:69-75,
it is more likely that Peter just caved in and capitulated to the pressure of
the legalistic Jewish brethren from Judea.
“…I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed”
Paul true to his word was having none of Peter’s hypocrisy. Because
Paul didn’t care very much about people’s positions (Gal2:6), and wasn’t interested
in pleasing men (Gal1:10), he stood up against and resisted Peter in the same
manner that Peter (1Pet5:9) and James (James 4:7) both would later indicate
that a Christian should resist the devil.
He was literally saying to Peter, “I don’t care who you are
or what your position is; you’re wrong!” This had nothing to do with ego or a power-play
to show who was in charge.
Paul was rebuking Peter’s behavior that attempted to
sacrifice the truth of the gospel and the unity of the Church. Peter deserved
what he got because he knew better than to do that.
This says quite a lot about the apostle Paul. There are not
many men who would have taken on Peter, who was together with James probably
the most influential leader in the church in his day. There are not many of us
today who would be willing to take on a popular or famous pastor or preacher if
what they were doing or saying was wrong. We have too much respect and an
unhealthy reverence for and submission to authority that borders on worshiping
other men and giving them the honor that belongs to God only. Paul wasn’t like
that at all.
This also says quite a lot about Peter. Surely, with his position
and influence, he could have made Paul pay for rebuking and embarrassing
him in public like that. However Peter was not like that. He lived a let go
life and didn’t keep grudges. He humbled himself and received Paul's rebuke.
The lack of any mention of problems caused by this encounter between Paul and
Peter is a good indication that Peter took heed to Paul's admonition.
We need more humility in church today. Many of us are
extremely proud and would not receive such a public rebuke like Peter did. Especially
the leaders, pastors and ministers. We read our own press releases and think we
are too awesome. And yet the truth is we are way overrated. We are not as
important as we think we are. We need to remain humble.
“For before that certain came
from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew
and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.” Gal2:12
The Jews have always had this concept of table-fellowship where
they eat together as a sign of oneness, equality, acceptance, commonality, and
intimacy. Eating together means that you have accepted whoever you are eating
with as your brethren, equal to you and of shared life and love. Some
Jewish-Christians were having a difficult time eating together with Gentiles
because they felt that they were superior to the Gentiles and that sharing a
table with them was degrading.
Peter while he was on the rooftop of a house in Joppa
praying had been given a graphic lesson by the Lord Himself in the irrelevance of
Jewish food-laws (Acts 10:9-23). So when he came to Antioch he ate regularly
with the Gentile-Christians, without caring about the preparatory regulations,
washings and so forth. He therefore exercised his freedom to eat with Gentiles regarding
them as equals in Christ and brethren.
However, when a group of Jews from Jerusalem came to
Antioch, claiming to have been authorized by James, the leader of the Jerusalem
church, Peter began to backpedal. Of course these guys didn’t represent James
or the Jerusalem church as they were claiming because after the Jerusalem
Council James and the elders drafted a letter to the Gentile churches
indicating that “some of our number to
whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you” Acts 15:24.
When these fellows arrived and started their usual disturbances
and segregation, Peter “withdrew and
separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.”
There is no doubt that religious fundamentalists can be very
intimidating since they have an array of tactics to scare and intimidate others.
And we know that Peter initially had this tendency to capitulate under pressure
(Matthew26:69-75), and true to form he began to retreat and back-off from
fellowship with the Gentile-Christians. He begun to separate himself from the
Gentiles as the Jews would have wanted.
Peter was still a man pleaser and was not as committed to
the truth of the gospel of grace as Paul was. He was willing to sacrifice the
truth he knew so that he stays in the good books of the powerful legalists who
still had considerable influence. He feared them and did what they wanted. This
is a powerful lesson for all of us today. We need to get to the place where we
fear no man but God only. Like Proverbs29:25 tells us, “The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the
LORD shall be safe.”
“And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that
Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.” Gal2:13
Paul was further disappointed that the other Jews who had
along carried on well with the Gentiles also followed Peter’s lead and started segregating
from the Gentile-Christians. Paul was left standing alone with the
Gentile-Christians.
“…insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation”
What disappointed Paul the most however was that “even Barnabas was carried away by their
hypocrisy.” Even Barnabas joined the rest of the Jewish-Christians in
segregating against the same Gentile-Christians he had ministered to
in Antioch.
Barnabas was a missionary pastor to the Gentiles, a man that took the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentile communities, the man that labored among them through thick
and then. It is obvious that Barnabas was deeply loved and respected by the Gentile Christians. And yet he also played the hypocrite.
You could forgive Peter or the other Jews because they were
simply visitors. But Barnabas had no excuse. He wasn’t fickle, nor a narrow-minded
person. He loved people. He was usually reaching out to others as “the Son of Encouragement” (Acts 4:36).
He stood by Paul against all odds (Acts 9:27). He is even the one who recruited
Paul for the work in Antioch (Acts 11:25:26), and accompanied Paul on the first
missionary journey to the Gentiles (Acts 13:2–14:26).
It deeply disappointed
Paul that Barnabas could do such a thing. With deep sadness Paul reports that “even Barnabas” was influenced and “carried away.” It is interesting that
Peter later used the same word in warning about being “carried away by the error of unprincipled men” 2Pet3:17.
“But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth
of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest
after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the
Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Gal2:14
When Paul saw this, he knew that he would have to take
drastic measures. And what would be more drastic than a public confrontation and
rebuke of Peter the great man of God? The one who had led all the others down
this path of hypocrisy. This would wake everyone out of their foolishness and
hypocrisy.
Unlike Peter and Barnabas, Paul had deep conviction of his
beliefs and was willing to defend with his life “the truth of the gospel.” He knew that this wasn’t a simple issue
of differing opinions or just a simple food practice but a fundamental issue of
the real truth of the gospel in Jesus Christ.
This wasn’t about procedures and practices of religion. Paul
knew that allowing this would destroy Christian freedom and Christian unity.
Jews would continue to perceive Gentiles as inferior to them and eventually
split the Church of Christ. This wasn’t happening on his watch! Peter didn’t know
it but he had another thing coming!
In front of everybody, Paul let Peter have it. He read him
the riot act. Without fear or favor. This is not a personal attack, but the
addressing of a theological issue. This wasn’t about washing dirty theological linen
in public or settling a score. The public nature of the wrongdoing called for
public exposure and rebuke. 1Timothy5:20 tells us that “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” This was
the right thing to do.
It is not correct that as leaders we keep everything under
wraps and deal with every issue privately. There are certain issues which by
nature have to be dealt with publicly. If a brother or sister is doing
something that is affecting the body and detrimental to the church or organization
as a whole, they need to be rebuked publicly so that others may fear and not
do likewise.
This doesn’t mean that you are not operating in grace. You are. It
is necessary sometimes to judge an individual to save the rest of the body. One
person can’t be more important than the whole group. If one person is
threatening the group like Peter was in this instance, rebuke them instantly so
that you save the group. That is grace.
Discretion is the
better part of valor.
Paul was a very wise and discreet man. When he was on
Peter's turf in Jerusalem he did not ruffle any feathers. He acted with wisdom
and discretion. He communicated the gospel privately to the leaders of the
Jerusalem church so that his effort wouldn't be in vain. He knew that he needed
to be in harmony with them. He did not seek to offend anybody or to cause
conflict.
But when he was in Antioch on his own turf and Peter and the
other Jews were his guests, it was a different situation. He could speak
straight in public without any hindrance. He spoke the truth to them whether
they liked it or not. Paul knew when to speak and when to keep quiet. How we
all would benefit from learning discretion.
“If thou, being a Jew, livest
after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the
Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
Paul asks Peter a very revealing question which challenges his
inconsistency. Peter, a Jew by race and religion, had exercised his freedom in
Christ to live in grace rather than by the Jewish old covenant Law. As a
result, he lived “after the manner of Gentiles,”
by not being under the Mosaic Law.
This means in other words, that Peter did
not observe all of the social customs and religious traditions of Judaism. He did
not wash as the Law demanded, he did not offer sacrifices, he did not observe
the food laws and so many other things which he did not do. Above all, he ate with the Gentiles. Peter felt free to
live as he wanted, without being bound to the dictates of the Old covenant. When
he came to Antioch he was practicing such freedom and there was no problem.
Paul now asks him this question, “Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are
living like a Gentile, why are you trying to make these Gentiles obey the
Jewish laws you abandoned?” NLT
This was pure hypocrisy. Peter wasn’t being straight. He himself
didn’t live according to the Jewish customs. And yet when these Judaizers came,
he began to pretend that behaving like a Jew was the right way to behave and
the Gentiles should follow suit. He wasn't practicing what he was preaching.
The Jerusalem Bible (JB) translation says, "If
you, though a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, you have no
right to make the Gentiles copy Jewish ways."
“We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles” Gal2:15
Paul uses a statement which is similar to the language
employed by legalistic Jews in their segregation against Gentiles as they
maintained their racial prejudices of superiority and distinction. Now Paul is
going to use their boastful pride of heritage in order to totally debunk this bankrupt
fallacy.
Paul was to show them that “both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin”Rom3:9, “by nature, children
of wrath”Eph2:3; that “Christ Jesus
came into the world to save sinners”1Tim1:15, so that all men, “Jew or Gentile,” might be one in Christ
Jesus (Gal3:28)
Comments
Post a Comment