COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS
LESSON NUM BER 16
Gal 2:11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 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. 13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Gal 2:11-13)
PAUL’S CONFRONTATION OF PETER, #1
INTRODUCTION
Paul continues to build his case against the Galatians, showing them the folly that was involved in forsaking the Gospel they first heard, to embrace “another gospel,” and thereby removing themselves from God. God can neither be found nor served by means of a false gospel. Further, the acceptance of an erroneous gospel is a most difficult circumstance from which to recover. A person is never more deluded than when he accepts a false gospel. That is the epitome of delusion, and the pinnacle of ignorance. This is why Paul is laboring with great zeal and extent to rescue the Galatians. He has already emphasized that, in their present state, they are removed from God – the One who called them into the grace of Christ (1:6). By virtue of that removal, they are no longer standing in grace, for that is only possible when a person is joined to the Lord, not when they are “removed” (Rom 5:2; 1 Pet 5:12). I am astounded at the loose thinking that is found in the professing church on this matter. Multitudes are persuaded that people still have access to the grace of God, even though they are removed from Him. A person cannot take so much as a step toward God without being smitten with the enormity of guilt that attends any removal from Him. As elementary as that may seem, a message is being delivered to the people that has completely obscured this reality. Paul has also shown the Galatians the vast chasm that separated their view of him and the Gospel he preached, from the premier members of the body of Christ – the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Now, he will confirm that the seemingly slightest departure from this Gospel is inexcusable, and is not to be tolerated – no matter where, or in whom, it is found. The people of God are not to become accustomed to error – either in human conduct or in doctrine. While this may appear to involve being judgmental and harsh, due regard must be given to the outcome of theological flaw.
PAUL WITHSTANDS PETER TO THE FACE
Gal 2:11 “"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
Now, Paul will confirm that he conducted himself in harmony with the Gospel of Christ. He is not speaking of a mere theological position, but of truth that is to be merged with human conduct. Paul was not only consistent in preaching the Gospel, but in living in accord with it as well. If you are engaged in the good fight of faith, you will soon find that there are no small number of religious people who are offended when anyone insists that the life of a professed believer must be consistent with their profession. Paul referred to such a manner of life as adorning the doctrine (Tit 2:10). He also referred to it as walking in newness of life, affirming that this is the reason we were raised up by God (Rom 6:4). It is illogical and unreasonable not to live wholly toward the Lord, and in strict harmony with the Gospel (2 Cor 5:15). There is no reason to attempt to explain inconsistencies in our lives. They are rather to be eliminated.
Paul will now show that his manners were consistent both in Jerusalem and in Antioch of Syria. He did not conduct himself differently when away from Jerusalem. He lived in a manner that was consistent with the Gospel, refusing to cater to the whims of men.
WHEN PETER WAS COME TO ANTIOCH. There is some varying opinions as to when this event took place. Some feel it was early, when Peter was traveling rather extensively, passing “throughout all quarters” (Acts 9:31). This view is obviously wrong, because the church in Antioch did not form until long after Peter’s extensive journeys. When it was first formed, the church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to go as far as Antioch (Acts 11:22). Following that, Barnabas went to Tarsus, found Saul, and returned with him to Antioch, where they remained for “a whole year” (Acts 11-22-26). The event now being described could not possibly have occurred before that, for Paul was not yet in Antioch.
It appears more probable that this event took place after the Jerusalem conference on the matter of circumcision, when Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, remaining there for some time, preaching and teaching (Acts 15:35). It also must have taken place before the separation of Paul and Barnabas, which is recorded in Acts 15:37-39).
I place this event, then, between the time following the Jerusalem conference, and the preparation to letters to the Gentile churches, and the conflict that arose between Paul and Barnabas. Luke does not provide the details of the meeting to which Paul now refers.
I WITHSTOOD HIM TO THE FACE. Other versions read, “resisted him to the face,” ASV “opposed him to his face,” NASB “I had to openly oppose him,” GWN “I rebuked him to his face,” MRD “I stood up against him, YLT and “I protested and opposed him to his face [concerning his conduct there].” AMPLIFIED
Immediately we see how seriously the Gospel and the body of Christ were taken. The interests of the individual were not the preeminent point. Unfortunately, we are living in a time when the individual trumps everything else. Further, this view is nurtured and maintained by distorted representations of God, Christ, and the Gospel. God and Christ are presented as maintaining a primary interest in the individual. The love of God is seen from that point of view, and is furthered by speaking of God loving everyone, seeking to help them fulfill their ambitions, and being intimately involved in their personal and domestic concerns. While there are admittedly elements of truth in such views, they certainly do not represent the thrust of the Gospel, and the center of the purpose of God and the work of Christ.
Part of the way the body of Christ is “tempered,” or “composed” NKJV together is by means of appropriate rebukes. As demonstrated in this text, those rebukes are ultimately in the interest of the whole body of Christ. As serious as personal transgression is, the fundamental reason for rebuking it that “a little leaven leaventh the whole lump,” a statement that is made to the two churches known for departing from the Gospel – Corinth (1 Cor 5:6), and Galatia (Gal 5:9). The defilement of the body of Christ is the most serious offense.
HE WAS TO BE BLAMED. Other versions read, “he stood condemned,” NASB “he was clearly in the wrong,” NIV “he stood self-condemned,” NRSV “he was completely wrong” GWN “They were stumbled by him,” MRD “he was manifestly in the wrong,” NJB “he was blameworthy,” YLT and “he was blameable and stood condemned.” AMPLIFIED
The word “blamed” means “to find fault with . . . to accuse, condemn.” THAYER In the area of morality, “blame” is like finding a rotten place on a piece of fruit. Unless that part is cut out, it will ruin the piece of fruit on which it is found, together with the basket of fruit of which it is a apart. Paul is not speaking here of some matter of opinion, or of a private view of the matter. Peter had violated the truth of the Gospel, and it will be most instructive to see how this was done. It was not that he had been immoral like the fornicator at Corinth. He had not taught erroneous doctrine, like some in the church at Pergamos. He had not coveted like Aachan, or lied like Ananias and Sapphira. His was an error conduct, and is to be duly noted.
BEFORE AND AFTER CONDUCT
2:12 “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.”
Remember, Paul is establishing his consistent interest in the Gentiles, as well as the purity of the Gospel that he preached. If the Galatians are offended because he has spoken harshly with them, they are to understand that he had been equally harsh with those of decidedly greater maturity than themselves. Further, those greater souls did not contend with him.
BEFORE CERTAIN CAME FROM JAMES. We have no information concerning the reason for James sending out these men. The incident is not covered by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. Yet, there is something to be seen here that is of more than passing interest. Among early church leaders, there was an earnest care for the churches themselves. While at times this did involve the perpetration of erroneous views, as in Acts 15:1-2, it nevertheless speaks of a condition that is itself rather strange in our time. You will find precious few Christian leaders who maintain a consistent interest in the churches themselves – particularly how they are doing in the faith. The early church sent out Barnabas to check on the progress of great multitudes that had turned to the Lord (Acts 11:20-22). Paul and Barnabas went through Syria and Cilicia confirming the churches, as they went out “to see how they do” (Acts 15:36,41). When letters were sent from Jerusalem to the Gentile churches concerning circumcision and the keeping of the Law, the churches were “established in the faith” (Acts 16:5). The closest the modern church leaders come to any semblance of interest generally pertains to numerical growth, the election church officers, or the certification of counselors. This is a far cry from the interests of real leaders.
Prior to the arrival of these men, Peter “did eat with the Gentiles,” mingling with them as brethren in Christ, and not treating them as being in any way inferior. These were not Gentiles in general, but believers of the Gentiles – believers in the church of Antioch.
WHEN THEY WERE COME. The point at which the event being considered took place was when this entourage from James arrived in Antioch. Their presence causes a shift in conduct toward the Gentiles, and it was not for the good.
HE WITHDREW AND SEPARATED HIMSELF. Other versions read, “began to withdraw and hold himself aloof,” NASB “began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles,” NIV “drew back and kept himself separate,” NRSV and “he withdrew and held himself aloof from the Gentiles and [ate] separately.” AMPLIFIED
Peter did not preach or teach differently. This had nothing to do with what he said, but rather with what he did. Even though he had been eating with the Gentile believers, unashamedly mingling with them, upon the arrival of these Jewish brethren from James, he apparently preferred them above the Gentile brethren. He physically separated from them, choosing to eat with the Jews. This might have been considered an innocent gesture by some. After all, he may not seen some of these brethren for a while.
PETER HAD ALREADY BEEN TUTORED ON THIS MATTER. Underscoring how serious this matter was, Peter had already been tutored on this subject, and had even received what he was told, and testified of it to the brethren in Jerusalem. He had been instructed from heaven not to treat as “common” what God had cleansed (Acts 10:15). Peter had even testified to his unqualified acceptance of this word: “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (Acts 10:28). After preaching to the Gentiles who were gathered in the house of Cornelius, he saw a visible demonstration that confirmed God had received these people (Acts 10:44). When certain in Jerusalem heard of the events at the house of Cornelius, they called Peter into account saying, “Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them” (Acts 11:3). Peter then rehearsed the whole event to them, concluding by saying, “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as He did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11:17). His critics then changed their minds saying, “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18). Now, about five or six years later, all of this is forgotten, and Peter conducts himself just as though none of those events ever took place. This does not represent the way he conducted himself all of the time, for he had been eating with the Gentile believers up to this point. Now, the sight of those of a different persuasion move him to act out of harmony with what had been pointedly and effectively revealed to him.
FEARING THEM WHICH WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION. Other versions read, “fearing the party of the circumcision,” NASB “afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group,” NIV and “for fear of those of the circumcision [party].” AMPLIFIED The word “fearing” is a strong one, meaning “put to flight by terrifying.” STRONG’S This was not a fear of being put to death, but an undue regard for men – “the fear of man,” which “bringeth a snare” (Prov 29:25).
THE OTHER JEWS DISSEMBLED LIKEWISE
2:13 “"And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.”
Perhaps you have experienced this kind of reaction from those you thought cared for you, and held you in high regard. As long as no one else was around, they conducted themselves as though they were your friend. However, as soon as someone with a demeaning view of you appeared, they suddenly found it convenient to be elsewhere. This is the “respect of persons,” against which we are solemnly warned (James 2:1). We have experienced the withdrawal of some brethren from our annual gatherings simply because some of the people with whom they are identified did not approve of their associations with us.
THE OTHER JEWS DISSEMBLED LIKEWISE. Other versions read, “And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him,” NKJV “the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy,” NASB “the rest of the Jews acted insincerely,” RSV and “the rest of the Jews along with him also concealed their true convictions and acted insincerely.” AMPLIFIED
The word “dissembled” means “to act hypocritically with,” STRONG’S “join in acting with insincerity or cowardice,” UBS and “to act hypocritically along with others - 'to pretend together, to join in hypocrisy.” LOUW-NIDA That is, they acted in contradiction of their own conscience, doing so to please the Jews who did not see things the way they did.
Here is a classic example of iniquity and hypocrisy spreading like leaven. Notice, the compromise was on the part of those who knew better. That is always the way compromise is – it moves those who have a greater degree of understanding to actually act in contradiction of it. That is what hypocrisy does – it pretends, Most of the time, hypocrisy is found in those who pretend to be godly, even though they are not. However, in this case, those who knew how they ought to conduct themselves among Gentile believers acted contrary to that knowledge, pretending to acquiesce to the stunted views of those who lived on a lower level.
Some might think there is nothing wrong with this. They may even consider it to be a sign of humility, so as not to offend those who have not seen the truth of a matter, and thus are living and teaching in contradiction of the truth. However, this is not at all the way Paul saw this circumstance. He testifies that he withstood Peter to the face because “he was to be blamed.” Considering the amount of truth to which Peter had been exposed, and which he had openly embraced, his conduct was wholly out of order.
Let us remember what this infraction was. Peter got up from the table, at which he was eating with the Gentiles, and went to another table where he could eat with the Jews, or at the very least not eat with the Gentiles.
BARNABAS WAS CARRIED AWAY. Now the offense spreads even further. Not only did the other Jews dismiss themselves from eating with the Gentile believers, but Barnabas himself, who had preached extensively among the Gentiles with Paul, was caught up in the transgression. He was “carried away” by a stream of activity – swept off his feet, so to speak, because an influential man like Peter had acted in a way that was out of harmony with the Gospel of Christ.
How serious is it when any believer allows himself to live in a manner that is in conflict with the Gospel of Christ? Remember how murmuring spread through the camp of the Israelites, when those who were of the “mixed multitude” remembered their Egyptian diet, and murmured because they were now eating manna (Num 11:4-6)?
What of those who forsake the assembling of themselves together, as the manner of some is – yet still desire to be seen as serious and devoted believers? Have you not seen such, so that many finally treat the solemn exhortation of the Spirit just as though it had never been said (Heb 10:25). What of those who once saw that failing to flee to Jesus for refuge was wrong – who now have been adversely impacted by professing believers that actually stand aloof from Jesus in preference for the flesh (Rom 8:12-13). What of those who are fully aware that Jesus said ones relatives cannot stand between them and Himself (Lk 14:26), yet still allow that to happen. Such conduct is like a spreading virus – a root of bitterness that defiles many (Heb 12:15).
When human conduct is altered for any reason other than to please the Lord, it cannot be right. Even though it may seem strong, at the precise point where a person seeks primarily to please men, he ceases to be the servant of Christ – and the outcome of such a choice is apparent.
Thus Paul has shown that his own conduct was perfectly consistent with the Gospel that he preached – even if it involved the rebuke of the leading apostle among “the twelve.” His purpose is not to demean Peter, and God forbid that any should think this to be the case. He was rather confirming to the Galatians the seriousness of their defection from the Gospel, which was on a grand scale when compared to the momentary lapse of Peter. If no provision was made for Peter to act in contradiction of the truth of the Gospel, how could anyone imagine that it was in any way acceptable for anyone else to do so? If a leading apostle could not get away with conduct that conflicted with the Gospel of Christ, it is certain no one else can do so.