COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS
LESSON NUMBER 17
Gal 2:14“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? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles." (Gal 2:14-15)
PAUL’S CONFRONTATION OF PETER, #2
INTRODUCTION
I suppose that no person will ever be able to accurately state the magnitude of the impact of philosophy upon religion. Buddhism, for example, is wholly philosophical, being termed a “non-theistic religion.” Six percent of the world’s population is Buddhist, numbering around 350,000,000. While this is an example of a fully philosophical religion, this manner of thinking is certainly not confined to Buddhism. Within the Christian community there is a strong tendency to philosophize about the various teachings of Scripture. A classic example of this is the way the second coming of Christ is approached. It is astounding how philosophical much of the teaching is on this subject. By “philosophize,” I mean to express a rational basis for fact and experience, independent of a knowledge of, and fellowship with, God and Christ. All of the religious plans, programs, and regards that are so popular in our day, are based on philosophy rather than on the truth of God. As an example, promiscuity is more and more being perceived as wrong because of the effect it has on those who indulge in it. With a staggering degree of godless increase, transgression, sin, and iniquity are disappearing from the modern Christian vocabulary. Along with that, Hell, damnation, condemnation, etc., are also fading into the background. All of this is owing to the separation of conduct from the professed belief of the Gospel. Convenient explanations are offered for the sharp variance between how people live, and their claim of being a Christian. All of this has a great deal of relevance in handling the text before us. The entire issue in this passage is that Peter had, during a single occasion, conducted his life in contradiction of the Gospel. In a moment of apparent weakness, he deferred to what the Jews from Judea might think of him eating with the Gentiles – a practice that contradicted Jewish tradition. Paul, however, does not refer to this as a mere human weakness, or an act prompted by forgetfulness. This single deed emitted a fog that could easily obscure the Gospel, and lead Gentile believers to a wrong conclusion concerning its message and the nature of spiritual life. I cannot conceive of something like this taking place in modern church or conference circles. That is because of the prevalence of philosophical views rather than spiritual understanding. Judge for yourself how serious this matter is by what Paul now writes.
I SAW THAT THEY WALKED NOT UPRIGHTLY
Gal 2:14a “But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel . . .”
I SAW. One version reads, “as soon as I saw.” AMPLIFIED The phrase “when I saw” indicates an immediate response. As used here, the word “saw” means “to perceive with the eyes.” THAYER While comprehension is involved, the emphasis is placed upon an outward action that was witnessed. This confirms that one’s outward conduct cannot be dismissed as though it was not intentional, or the person simply acted out of character, not thinking about what he did. No person has the right to ask his brethren in Christ to ignore what they see him doing. Such an approach to flawed conduct is philosophical, attempting to rationalize inappropriate expressions – something that cannot successfully be done. At this point, this has nothing to do with being too judgmental. The person who lives in an inconsistent manner is at fault, not the one who points out that inconsistency. You may recall that when the people in the plain of Shinar were judged for making a name for themselves by attempting to build a tower and a city, that judgment was preceded by this revealed Divine activity: “And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded" (Gen 11:5). The same was true of the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain: “I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto Me; and if not, I will know" (Gen 18:21). It is not possible to divorce what a person is seen to be doing from what they say they are believing. For some, that is a hard saying, but that is what we are seeing in this text.
THEY WALKED NOT UPRIGHTLY. Other versions read, “they were not straightforward,” NKJV “not acting in line with,” NIV “not acting consistently with,” NRSV “were not walking a straight path,” CJB “they were deviating from,” CSB “conduct not in step with,” ESV “they went not the right way,” GENEVA and “were not living up to.” AMPLIFIED
While salvation is “not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:9), it is not independent of works. We are created in Christ Jesus “unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk I them” (Eph 2:10). Works are what we DO, or how we live out our lives. This is what the words “walk,” “walked,” and “walking” are describing (Rom 4:12; 6:4; 8:1; 13:13; 2 Cor 5:7; Gal 5:16; Col 1:10). This is not a concept that accents thinking, although thought is certainly involved. Walking rather places the stress upon expression – expression that is funneled through the body. This is part of presenting our bodies a living sacrifice to God. (Rom 12:1-2).
To walk “uprightly” is to live outwardly in conformity to the profession of faith. It means to live out one’s life in the manner God intends for men to live. David wrote of walking “uprightly” as working righteousness (Psa 15:2). Solomon contrasted walking “uprightly” with perverting one’s ways (Prov 10:9). The people of God must not be tolerant of any representation of the salivation of God that allows for men to live a manner of life that is out of harmony with that salvation. It is ludicrous to think that God would devise a salvation that permitted men to go on living for self, yet maintain the status of being saved.
ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL. The definition of uprightness is found within “the truth of the Gospel.” Other versions read, “the true words of the good news,” BBE “the truth of the Gospel message,” NLT “in the spirit of the Good News,” WEYMOUTH “in the presence of the truth of the gospel.” MONTGOMERY The Gospel is the heralding of the Good News of deliverance from sin and its power (Rom 6:2,11), as well as the devil (James 4:7), and the world (Gal 1:4). It announces that a resolution to the matter of alienation and sin IS realized in Christ Jesus. It declares that God is JUST, or righteous, in the matter of justifying men from sin, not tolerating their continuance in it. Any person who does not adorn this doctrine, confirming that the Gospel is truth, is not walking uprightly. If a person can, in fact, believe and embrace the Gospel, and yet live contrary to it, then the Gospel is really not truth. The truth of the Gospel is confirmed by Divine affirmation AND the impact that it has upon those who believe it.
WHAT CAUSED THIS ASSESSMENT? Why did Paul speak with such certitude, affirming that Peter and those who had joined with him were contradicting the Gospel? It was NOT because of what they had said. Rather, it was because of what they had DONE. They physically got up and removed themselves from the Gentiles because they feared the Jews. Great sins do not always appear to be great. Adam and Eve ate a piece of fruit. Uzzah touched the ark of the covenant to keep it from falling. David counted those in the army. Ananias and Sapphira misrepresented how much they gave to the church. John Mark returned home rather than continuing with Paul and Barnabas. What was so wrong with those deeds? It was that they conflicted with the truth – and that is always a most serious circumstance.
For the Galatians, they had traded the truth of the Gospel for a lie. They had removed themselves from Him who had called them into the grace of Christ, in order to listen to other teachers and embrace another gospel. They had been as surely deceived by the devil as were Adam and Eve. They had DONE something that was contradictory to the truth of the Gospel. That is a situation that could not be ignored. Their salvation was at stake!
WHY DO YOU COMPEL THE GENTILES TO LIVE LIKE JEWS?
2:14b “ . . . 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?”
This text is a sterling example of spiritual reasoning, which proceeds from “the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding” (Col 1:9). The flesh can make no sense out of these words, because they reflect an understanding that is too lofty for the flesh. The “carnal mind” could have easily dismissed the action of Peter and those who followed him, providing a convenient explanation that would have salved the conscience of those who were willing to compromise their faith. Remember, Peter had said no words. This confrontation was in answer to something he did. But that did spoke volumes which flew right in the face of the truth of the Gospel. That action, taken to its logical conclusion, would have resulted in the rejection of the Gentiles as valid members of the body of Christ – and how serious is something like that?
I SAID UNTO PETER BEFORE THEM ALL. Other versions read, “in the presence of them all,” NASB “in front of them all,” NIV and “before everbody present.” AMPLIFIED Peter’s deed was done openly, and so the rebuke was administered publicly. In reading this text, one senses that Peter himself was not the point, but those who had beheld what Peter did. In a self-serving generation, this is very difficult to perceive. For many believers, the individual has become the whole point. However, in this text, the body of Christ was the point – particularly those who were being slighted in favor of the Jewish believers. If this is not true, what possible reason could be adduced for addressing Peter “before them all.” Needless to say, there is no room here for fleshly sympathy, for in a cause for the truth, individuals must give the preeminence to the Lord Himself, the truth of the Gospel, and to the body of Christ. Blessed are those who see this.
LIVING AFTER THE MANNER OF THE GENTILES. Other versions read, “live like the Gentiles,” NASB “live like a Gentile,” NIV “have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile,” NLT “can live [as you have been living] like a Gentile and not like a Jew.” AMPLIFIED“you have long since discarded the Jewish laws” LIVING
Ordinarily, living like the Gentiles was something that was denounced (Eph 4:17-18; 1 Thess 4:5; 1 Pet 4:3). Here, however, Paul is not referring to unbelieving Gentiles, but to believing ones. Some time before this, Peter had been convinced by a vision that eating unclean meats, as defined by the Law, was no longer a requirement (Acts 10:14-15). He finally saw this as confirming that he could enter the house of a Gentile and eat with them without being defiled. He could not have come to this conclusion without first seeing that the ceremonial classification of clean and unclean meats was no longer valid. Further, there can be no doubt that he eventually correlated this with the teaching of Jesus, who said what entered a man could not defile him (Matt 15:11). Living “after the manner of the Gentiles,” therefore, did not have to do with the moral debauchery and ignorance of the unsaved heathen. It rather referred to eating with the Gentiles, which Peter was doing prior to leaving them in deference to the Jews.
It is clear that the table of the Gentiles did not reflect the ceremonial distinctions that were in the Law. These believers had been specifically told they were not bound to the ceremonial law, but must only avoid eating “meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled” (Acts 15:29). Peter had defended the Gentile believers at that previous meeting, saying, “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (Acts 15:10). He had further affirmed that there was no special salvation for the Gentiles, but rather a common one: “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they" (Acts 15:11).
Thus, he had been living like a Gentile believer, not observing the Jewish traditions, even in the time of eating during the very occasion to which Paul refers. Yet, he conducted himself differently when Jewish believers entered the room, deferring to sit with them while eating from a table that obviously was spread with the Jewish traditions in mind. Nothing would have been particular wrong with this if only Jews were present. That would have been like Paul identifying with four Jewish men who had taken a Temple vow (Acts 21:23-26). But that was not the situation here. They were in the presence of Gentile believers who had just been told they were not obligated to honor Jewish ceremonies. That altered the entire circumstance.
WHY DO YOU COMPEL THE GENTILES TO LIVE AS JEWS? Other versions read, “force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs,” NIV “urge and practically force the Gentiles to [comply with the ritual of Judaism and] live like Jews?” AMPLIFIED Peter had not made a verbal demand that the Gentiles observe Jewish customs. The coercion was by example, not a commandment. If, when the more seasoned believers from Judea arrived, Peter chose to eat at their table, he was showing by example that their manners were preferred above those of the Gentiles. For serious Gentile believers, this would have negated the letters they had received from Jerusalem, and applied moral pressure upon them to choose to eat after the manner of the Jews – something neither God nor the Gospel required them to do. Judge for yourself how serious this was.
WE WHO ARE JEWS . . . NOT GENTILES
2:15 "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles."
WE. This refers to all Jews generally, but to Peter and Paul specifically.
JEWS BY NATURE. Other versions read, “Jews by birth,” NASB “were born Jews,” NJB “Although we ourselves (you and I) are Jews by birth,” AMPLIFIED and “We Jews know that we have no advantage of birth.” MESSAGE
There are at least three views of individuals being Jews. The first is stated here, and refers to the physical birth of the individual. The second is the result of becoming a proselyte, embracing the God of the Jews, as well as His Law. The third is a spiritual sense, which does not strictly take the fleshly birth into account. Paul spoke of this when he said, “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Rom 2:29). Everyone who is a Jew by birth is not necessarily in this category. Gentiles who embrace Christ are said to have been grafted into the natural olive tree, partaking of its “root and fatness” (Rom 11:17). So what is Paul saying?
Fleshly descent must give way to spiritual birth, or regeneration. The only advantage the Jew had was not their birth itself, but that “unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2). Those “oracles” were not primarily ceremonial distinctions and observances, and certainly did not relate to their natural birth or circumcision. They had more to do with identity with God, the glory of God, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the service of God, the promises, the fathers, and the coming of Christ (Rom 9:4-5). Those are the things that made them distinct – and every single one of them referred to something God did, or what they did toward God!
What Paul is saying is that fleshly advantage is no real advantage at all – not before the Lord. The fact that they were born Jews did not suggest that the Gentiles were under obligation to conduct their lives in Christ as though there were Jews, for in Christ there is no such thing as a Jew – or male and female, or bond and free (Gal 3:28).
In Christ Jesus, the advantage is believing, not in fleshly birth. The imputation of righteousness is based upon believing (Rom 4:24). Justification from all things is based upon believing (Acts 13:39; Rom 3:26). We are “all the children of God by faith” (Gal 3:26). The offspring of Abraham that are accepted by God are those with faith (Gal 3:7).
The Jewish race was, in a sense, incidental. Were it not for the Messiah, it would have no lasting significance at all. Therefore, with this remark, Paul sweeps aside all arguments based upon the fleshly descent of Jews. While the Ten Commandments were binding upon all men, the ceremonial law was not. Heathen kings like Abimelech, Nebuchadnezzah, and Belshazzar, were rebuked for various moral sins – but none of them were rebuked for what they ate.
NOT SINNERS OF THE GENTILES. The term “sinners of the Gentiles,” does not imply the Jews were not sinners. As used here, the expression applies to Divine acceptance. The Jews were accepted, but not upon the basis of either their birth or their achievement. They belonged to God by Divine choice, not by human merit (Deut 7:6-7). The Gentiles were not accepted because God neither chose them nor entered into covenant with them. He did not reject them because they were Gentiles, but they were Gentiles because they had been rejected. It was the Lord’s lack of involvement with them that particularly brought about their moral and spiritual degeneracy. However, complicated though it may appear on the surface, the Jews also degenerated into the state of the Gentiles. This is because no moral or spiritual advantage is traced back to one’s birth in the flesh.
The Gentiles were “saved by grace” – but so were the Jews (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)! The Gentiles had to be “born again” – but so did the Jews (John 3:5,8; 1 Pet 1:23). The Gentiles were made “accepted in the Beloved” – but so were the Jews (Eph 1:6). The Gentiles had to be “justified by faith” – but so did the Jews (Rom 3:28; 5:1; Gal 3:24).
Now, if all of this is true, what possible reason can be adduced for leading the Gentiles to the conclusion that they ought to observe Jewish manners, which brought no moral or spiritual advantage to the Jews? If a practice, however cherished, does not bring the individual closer to God, or impact directly upon their inner constitution and outward manners, what sense does it make to bind it upon someone else? If the Jews were under obligation to let go of the ceremonial Law once faith had come (Gal 3:25), what possible reason could be given for the Gentiles, who also had “the door of faith” opened to them, be led to believe they should honor the customs of the Jews in order to maintain their fellowship?
Does any person have a right to require more for the maintenance of his fellowship than Jesus does for fellowship with Himself? Is more required to maintain an association with the people of God than is required to be received by both God and Christ (Rom 13:3; 15:7)? On the other hand, who would be bold enough to affirm that men can be received as brethren on a lesser basis than is required to become “the sons of God” (Rom 4:14; Phil 2:15; 1 John 3:1-3). The bottom line is that whatever is required to be saved is also required to have fellowship with those who are saved, and that nothing is required for fellowship with men that is not required for fellowship with God.