V. The Incident

November 2/3, 2011 Galatians 2:11-15 Aim : To recognize that even great Christians can and will sin. We have sensed something of a tension from the very beginning of the letter, but it is only now that we come to the heart of the epistle – the real issue that Paul is going to deal with. It was an awkward moment to say the least. It’s always embarrassing when a fight breaks out at church, but this one was a real doozy. For one thing, it took place during a church potluck, where everyone was supposed to be having a good time. For another thing, the combatants were the pillars of the church. It was Peter against Paul, two apostles in a face-to-face, knock-down, drag-out showdown. Some scholars have argued that the breach was permanent – that Peter and Paul were never reconciled. Perhaps this was what the Judaizers had been saying to the Galatians. Everyone knew there had been some kind of argument at Antioch, and it would have been easy to use the incident to discredit Paul’s gospel. Yet according to Paul, the altercation was the final proof that he was a genuine apostle of the one true gospel of free grace. First Paul argued that he had been an apostle before he met the other apostles (1:13-24). Next he showed how the other apostles recognized him as an apostle in his own right (2:1-10). In case any further proof was needed, he now shows that he even had the authority to rebuke another apostle who stepped out of line (2:11-14). Thus, Paul continues the defense of his apostolic credentials by reporting his exercise of authority on one occasion even over Peter, whom most believers in the early church considered to be the preeminent apostle. Today’s church is often governed by pragmatism – if it works, do it – which means that it fails to a large extent to apply biblical principles to everything it does. The apostle Paul, however, always thought theologically. He had the ability to get to the root of an issue and understand not just its causes, but its presuppositions and conclusions. He could anticipate consequences involved in a particular theory or act.

A. Public Act (2:11-13; cp. Acts 10; Mark 7:14-23)

1. Eating with the Gentiles (2:11-12a) Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles… After Paul’s second visit to (vv. 1-10), perhaps they parted with words like, ‘Why don’t you all come up to Antioch and visit us?’ The reciprocal meeting could not have been more disastrous. Whatever tension they managed to avoid on their visit to Jerusalem, the return visit to Antioch went horribly wrong. The wrong itself seems to have been Peter’s doing. Nor was it done in private (as the meeting in Jerusalem had been). It was very public, and the consequence was very dramatic. Peter had come to Antioch at some stage between Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Council (). We are not told how soon after the return of Paul and to Antioch (some 300 miles north of Jerusalem) this next incident occurred. Paul refers to Peter by the Aramaic translation, Cephas. Does he do this deliberately to suggest that Peter was acting as

Galatians Notes.doc p. 50 29-Oct-11 Galatians – Lesson 5 a Jew and not as a Christian? Peter had been in Antioch for some time before being joined by the others, long enough for him to establish a pattern of enjoying table fellowship with the Gentiles. One of the reasons the incident at Antioch was so ugly was its racial overtones. Jews did not associate publicly with Gentiles, particularly when it came to eating. These issues did not play any significant part in the predominantly Jewish Jerusalem, but in Antioch things were different. Jewish dining habits created a crucial problem for the church in the cosmopolitan city of Antioch. Of a population of nearly half a million, at least 10 percent were Jews. So the Antiochene church became a multicultural melting pot. It was a place where the diverse followers of Christ were first called ‘Christians.’ People could tell that whatever this strange religion was, it was not exclusively Jewish, so it needed a special name. Antioch thus became the first place where the early church had to wrestle with the issue of table fellowship. At their former meeting in Jerusalem (2:1-10), the apostles had already agreed that the Gentiles belonged in the church. They didn’t have to keep the Old Testament law to be saved. At the same time, it was still appropriate for Jewish Christians to maintain their heritage by keeping the ceremonial law. Just as the Gentiles could behave like Gentiles, so the Jews could behave like Jews. But how was a Jew supposed to relate to a Gentile when they both worshipped in the same church? Did they have to eat together? Table fellowship with Gentiles had always been forbidden! How could Jewish Christians keep kosher if they had to eat with Gentiles who ate the wrong foods, prepared the wrong way, and in some cases offered to the wrong gods? Although the apostles had already settled the theological question of salvation for the Gentiles, they had not settled the practical question of fellowship with the Gentiles. Jews ( and Jewish Christians in this early period) had ‘issues’ with certain foods: pork, meat that had been offered to idols, and meat from which blood had not been sufficiently drained. These were more than personal tastes; it was a matter of obedience to Jewish law (cp. Lev. 3:17; 7:26- 27; 17:10-14). However, what was going on in the church involved something more than racism; keeping the Old Testament food laws was one way for the Jews to show that they belonged to God. God had previously revealed the radical solution to this problem in a vision. Peter had learned from the Lord that all foods were clean and that it was not improper for Christian Jews to have social interaction with Christian Gentiles (Acts 10:1-29). He had received a vision in the seaside town of Joppa that prepared him to witness to the Gentile Roman centurion named Cornelius. There he would not only speak with him but eat at the same table with him as a guest (:3), just as Cornelius’ men had done with Peter in Joppa (Acts 10:23). Better than any other apostle, Peter knew that in Christ all foods were clean and all believers equal. He had heard explain it (Mark 7:18-19) and had experienced it with his vision in Joppa and fellowship with Cornelius, after which he declared, ‘I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality’ (Acts 10:34). Peter had faced the ire of Jerusalem over this very practice in Caesarea (Acts 11:2-3). Perhaps he still smarted from that rebuke and was not keen to experience it again. But at that time Peter had evidently stood firm on this very issue. Peter came to understand that his vision was not just about evangelism; it was also about fellowship. ‘He was eating with the Gentiles,’ Paul wrote, meaning that it was Peter’s usual custom to sit with them at the table. The imperfect tense of the Greek verb indicates that Peter’s eating was continuous, that is, habitual and regular over some period of time. Peter did not have

Galatians Notes.doc p. 51 29-Oct-11 Galatians – Lesson 5 any scruples about sharing a meal with his uncircumcised brothers in Christ. His radical solution to the problem of table fellowship was to consider them not separate, but equal. Until the ‘men from James’ came to Antioch, he was participating with the church in a model fellowship of Jewish and Gentile believers who freely expressed and deeply cherished their love and liberty in Christ. Paul ‘withstood’ or ‘opposed’ Peter. ‘Opposed’ is from anist ēmi , which carries the meaning of hindering or forbidding, and was usually applied to defensive measures. Peter was ‘condemned,’ not in the sense of losing his salvation but in the sense of being guilty of sin by taking a position he knew was wrong. God used Paul to nit the error in the bud. In so doing He also provided Paul with perhaps his most convincing proof of apostolic authority. God has a purpose even in the worse of circumstances, and what could have been a tragedy He used for His glory and for the strengthening of His church.

2. Not Eating with the Gentiles (2:12b) …but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. ‘Some men’ arrived from Jerusalem. It is possible that these men were the very same ones that had been labeled ‘spies’ by Paul. It is also possible that they were actually from Galatia and were the very ones who later had caused problems there and had necessitated Paul’s writing of this letter. These were claiming to represent James, the Lord’s brother in Jerusalem. James was not in Antioch, but he might as well have been. He had become the leading figure in the church in Jerusalem. Even if James had not sanctioned them, Peter seems to have drawn the conclusion that their opinion mattered, and mattered greatly. James the brother of Jesus had given Paul the right hand of fellowship. But apparently James also had his groupies in Jerusalem – what we might call ‘the James gang’ – and sometimes they lacked the balance of their hero. Members of the ‘James gang’ went to Antioch to check up on Peter. These extremists were Christians, of course, but as former Pharisees (in all likelihood) they were very traditional in their faith (cp. Acts 15:5). The first thing they noticed was how lax Peter was when it came to the old traditions. He was behaving practically like a pagan! As Paul would later put it, he lived ‘like a Gentile and not like a Jew’ (v. 14). There he was, sitting down to have table fellowship with unwashed, uncircumcised heathens. He might as well have gone the whole hog and hosted a pig roast for the singles fellowship! The party ‘of the circumcision’ were Judaizers, Christian Jews who taught that Gentiles needed to be circumcised and then observe all other Jewish customs in order to have full and equal standing in the Church. They claimed to represent James, the brother of the Lord and a leader of the Jerusalem church. When they arrived Peter began to distance himself from the Gentiles, because he was intimidated by the group from Jerusalem. Paul uses a verb form (‘began to withdraw’) to show that Peter did not break immediately. Instead he wrestled with the temptation to break fellowship with the Gentiles. The pressure group from Jerusalem put Peter in an awkward situation. Frankly he found himself ‘fearing the circumcision party.’ He knew how traditional they were, and he did not want to offend them. After all, he was called to take the gospel to the Jews, not the Gentiles, so why worry about the Gentiles? So Peter did an about face. What Peter did was not a matter of principle; it was a case of cowardice.

Galatians Notes.doc p. 52 29-Oct-11 Galatians – Lesson 5

Was it that Peter was just afraid of these men because he was weak and prone to be fearful of any pressure group? He knew that James did not hold these views, but was afraid of what might happen to him once he returned again to Jerusalem. This was not the first time Peter had given into peer pressure, but at least the fourth (see Mt. 26:69-75). From this we learn that even great Christians can fall into sin, sometimes more than once. We also learn how necessary it is for Christian ministers to have the courage to defend the gospel against all opposition, including opposition that comes from within the church. Peter’s firm conviction was that salvation came by grace through faith, not by the law. He not only believed that Gentiles could be first-class Christians, he also lived in a way that demonstrated that they were. Nevertheless, Peter retreated from his former position. He ‘pulled back’ from his brothers and sisters. The Greek term ( hypestellen ) is sometimes used to describe a military withdrawal or strategic disengagement. Polibius used it to describe troops drawing back from the enemy in order to secure shelter and safety. The imperfect tense may indicate that Peter’s withdrawal was gradual and, if so, suggests the idea of a sneaking retreat. Acquiescing to both the ritualism and racism of the Jews, he began to drift away from his Gentile brethren and stopped accepting their invitations to dinner. In effect, Peter was ashamed of the gospel. When push came to shove, he did not stand his ground for the truth that all Christians are saved by the same grace. The old Peter—weak, fearful, and vacillating—had come to the fore again. The Judaizers claimed to be Christians and therefore obviously had no authority from the Sanhedrin to arrest, imprison, or put anyone to death—as the men did who stoned Stephen and as Paul himself once had done. The most the Judaizers could have done against Peter was to ridicule him and malign him in Jerusalem, as their fellow Judaizers would malign Paul in Galatia. Peter was afraid of just that—losing popularity and prestige with a group of self- righteous hypocrites whose doctrines were heretical and whose tactics were deceitful. When he withdrew, he played into the hands of the Judaizers, who must have been elated to have drawn this great apostle into their camp, by practice if not by precept.

3. Playing the Hypocrite (2:13) And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. Peter was the leader, and his public action invariably took others with him. The effect on the Antioch church was disastrous. His example influenced what everyone else did, including Barnabas. We can sense Paul’s shock and disbelief. Even Barnabas! Even Barnabas, his close friend, who had introduced him to the church and defended him before the other apostles (Acts 9:27). Even Barnabas, who had helped him in his mission to the Gentiles. Even Barnabas, a godly and kind-hearted man who was at this time one of the pastors at Antioch. Paul could hardly believe it. It may have been Barnabas’ hypocrisy on this occasion that began the eventual rift with Paul that a short while later resulted in their separation over taking John Mark on the next journey (Acts 15:37-40). What makes it plausible that something more than just cowardice on Peter’s part is afoot in the defection of Barnabas. The fact that Barnabas could defect on this issue must have come as a staggering blow to Paul on every level, and we sense it in his words, ‘even Barnabas.’ However we view the interactions here, these men were not spotless. Great leaders can sin too.

Galatians Notes.doc p. 53 29-Oct-11 Galatians – Lesson 5

As a consequence of Peter’s behavior, the remainder of the Christian Jews followed his example. (Even Barnabas was led astray into this hypocrisy!). One ought not to be surprised at the others following Peter’s example; after all, he was the most eminent of the apostles. Paul refers to Peter’s act as ‘hypocrisy’ because he was acting against the revelation he had received earlier (Acts 10:1-29). The word ‘hypocrite’ comes from the Greek theater, where actors wore masks to play their parts. The masks were used to indicate a particular mood or type of character. A hypocrite is someone who, like a Greek actor, masks his true self. Paul saw that Peter, Barnabas, and the others were putting on a charade. They did not really believe that Gentiles were second-class Christians, but they were acting as if they did. Their actions were not consistent with their theology. Peter and the other Jewish believers who withdrew with him knew that what they were doing was wrong, but they were intimidated by the Judaizers into going against the truth of their convictions and consciences. In seeking to please those hypocrites they became hypocrites themselves, and in so doing brought heartache to their Gentile brothers and to the Lord. The real effect of this hypocrisy was to deny the gospel. It was almost as if Peter and the others had gone back on the agreement they had reached in Jerusalem (2:1-10).

B. Private Realization (2:14a) But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all… Some people are like Peter. They hate confrontation. However, Paul was not one of those people. He really didn’t care what anybody else thought. Even when it came to another apostle, Paul cared enough to confront. For him, it was not peace at any price, but the gospel at all costs. There were many situations in which Paul was willing to keep things private, or work out some kind of compromise. But not this time. He opposed Peter right to his face, and he did it out in the open, right in front of the whole church. Paul did not do this to be argumentative, or because he considered Paul a rival. He did it because the gospel was at stake, and because Peter’s sin was so obvious.

The term ‘straightforward’ is from orthopode ō, a compound of orthos (‘straight’) and pous (‘foot’) that means ‘to walk in a straight line or uprightly.’ One scholar translates verse 14a as, ‘They were not walking on the straight path towards the truth of the gospel.’ In withdrawing from their Gentile brethren, Peter, and the others were not living parallel to God’s Word, not walking a straight spiritual course. There is more at stake here than table manners. The gospel is being compromised. By doing what they did, Peter and Barnabas were indicating that the Gentile Christians in Antioch were deficient in some way, were not true brothers. A theological principle was at issue for Paul, one that could not be ignored, or even dealt with privately. Not only was Peter in the wrong, but he was also setting a bad example. This is why Paul had to confront him in public, unmasking his hypocrisy before the whole congregation. A private offense deserves a private rebuke, but a public scandal demands public exposure (see 1 Tim. 5:20). Augustine said, ‘It is not advantageous to correct in secret an error which occurred publicly.’ Unless the public sin of a believer is dealt with publicly, people will think the church

Galatians Notes.doc p. 54 29-Oct-11 Galatians – Lesson 5 does not take sin seriously and therefore gives tacit approval of it. A church that does not discipline sinning members (including the most prominent members) loses its credibility, because it does not take seriously its own doctrines and standards. Why did this clash have to be public? Why did Paul see this as a defection from the truth of the gospel? We may assume that Paul had first remonstrated with Peter privately according to Jesus’ instruction (Mt. 18:15-20). If so, this only further exacerbates Peter’s stubbornness or cowardice or both. Since the incident was public (Peter’s refusal to sit at the same table with Gentile Christians), the rebuke (and expected repentance) were equally public.

Paul called to task one of the pillars of the whole church, one of the trio of prominent leaders in Jerusalem (with James and John). Paul admonished him because his actions were contrary to the gospel. This rebuke was severe; a public humiliation of an apostle. Why was Paul so severe? The answer is that Peter by his action was perverting the gospel. Paul understood that his skirmish with Peter was nothing less than a battle for the gospel of free grace. On the surface, the issue was unity between Jews and Gentiles at the table. But beneath the surface lurked the deeper issue of what God requires for salvation. Paul has only one measuring stick and that is the truth of his gospel. If an apostle lives in such a way so as to deny the truth of the gospel, let him be rebuked. Peter’s offense was ultimately a denial of the gospel. Paul says the ‘truth of the gospel’ is on the line at this point. Paul means the gospel of free grace, justification received by faith alone.

C. Public Rebuke (2:14b-15)

1. Jews and Gentiles – Similar Lifestyles (2:14b) …‘If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?’ The Judaizers denied the truth of the gospel when they added to the gospel message the necessity of circumcision and Jewish observances in order to attain full standing on the church. When Peter broke table fellowship with the Gentile Christians, he in effect was saying, ‘You must do more than trust in Christ to have fellowship with me.’ What did his action proclaim? In that one act, the Judaizers got everything they wanted without having to win one theological argument. By his action, Peter was saying that profession of union with Christ was not a sufficient basis for Gentile Christians to have fellowship with him. They had to be circumcised; they had to become Jews. In contrast to Peter’s hypocrisy, Paul’s indictment was straightforward. He simply pointed out the obvious inconsistency of Peter’s behavior in Antioch. Paul accused Peter of forcing the Gentiles to ‘Judaize,’ or adopt Jewish customs and practices, in order to be accepted in the church. Peter did not really believe that salvation came from being Jewish, but in this case his actions spoke louder than his words. By refusing to eat with Gentiles, he was communicating that he thought they were unclean. Gentiles were getting the picture that if they wanted to become Christians, they had no choice but to live like Jews. Peter’s action implied that the Gentile Christians were not truly members of the household of faith – not according to the definition interpreted by ‘the men from James.’ Their uncircumcised status disqualified them. Though it may appear as though the issue here is food and kosher laws,

Galatians Notes.doc p. 55 29-Oct-11 Galatians – Lesson 5 the real issue is the fact that these profession Christians were Gentiles. The real issue is explained in Acts 15:1 – circumcision. This is much more than the question of whether Gentiles are included in the church. Much more! It is the very essence of the gospel itself: justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, apart from the works of the law . That is the real issue. We know that Peter did not intend to affirm the Christ-dishonoring doctrines of the Judaizers. He had not thought through to the consequences of his actions. Instead he acted out of fear; he was intimidated. He acted without thinking and his action caused other Jewish Christians, including even Barnabas, to follow his example. Neither Peter nor Barnabas were denying the gospel verbally. But their actions were calling it into question. By their inconsistency, by going back on what they had already practiced before this time, they were undoing the validity of their own testimony and wounding the understanding of others as to the nature of the gospel. Paul understood the breach of the gospel involved in Peter’s act. He saw the immediate consequences and held Peter accountable for his actions. Paul does not tell us if Peter repented. He does not need to. His purpose is not to humiliate Peter further. Paul had no desire to lord it over Peter or to build up his own reputation at the expense of a fellow apostle. His motive was not to humiliate Peter but to correct him in a serious error that had caused many other believers to stumble with him. We know from the remainder of Scripture that Peter immediately repented. We know from Peter’s remarks about Paul in 2 Peter 3:16 that Peter highly esteemed him. Therefore, the rebuke was successful, showing the truth of Paul’s free gospel and his apostolic authority. Let us learn from Peter’s example the necessity of humbling ourselves under rebuke. You and I, like Peter, are to humble ourselves under godly admonition. This is another warning for the contemporary church. Our behavior can undermine our belief. It is possible for Christians to believe the gospel in their hearts and even confess it with their mouths, yet deny it with their lives.

2. Jews and Gentiles – Different Backgrounds (2:15) We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles… The problem with the ‘James gang’ is that they were recovering Pharisees. They were concerned about outward appearances. They kept a list of things people had to do to be good Christians. When Gentile converts didn’t’ do some of these things—get circumcised, for example—they were treated as second-class Christians. Such Pharisaism runs deep in human nature. Peter and Paul had the same birthright. They were natural-born Jews rather than pagans. They had always been on the inside with God’s people, not outside in the world. The apostles had come to complete agreement about the good news of Jesus Christ. Their only difference of opinion was over what the good news meant for table fellowship. The battle for the gospel, then, was not a contest between two different gospels. Rather, Paul was fighting to make sure that the church would continue to live by the gospel it had always preached. Paul proves the necessity of free justification by demonstrating that Jews could only be justified by faith. The premise on which this argument is based is that those within the covenant community have a special standing in the sight of God. When he says that we are Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners, he is not claiming that Jews were not sinners. Rather, he is pointing out that within the covenant they were separated from the world of paganism and unbelief. Paul is simply asserting the special position of all those who are in covenant with God. Here he is

Galatians Notes.doc p. 56 29-Oct-11 Galatians – Lesson 5 identifying for a moment with his Jewish-Christian brothers in acknowledging the advantages that are theirs by having been born and raised as Jews. ‘We’ is used four times in verse 15-17 and refers to Paul, Peter, and all other Jewish Christians. In referring to the Gentiles as ‘sinners,’ Paul was not using the term in the behavioral sense of public immorality, but in the legal sense in which it was frequently used by the Jews. In the minds of most Jews, Gentiles were sinners by nature because they had no law to guide them in right living and in pleasing God. But with or without the law, Paul was saying, no person is saved who has not believed in Christ Jesus. At the Jerusalem Council Peter declared that same truth (Acts 15:10-11).

D. Practical Lessons We can note two significant lessons from the confrontation. First, there is the importance of the ministry of Christian rebuke and exhortation, one that is greatly neglected in today’s church. Keep three things in mind if you have difficulty in exhorting and encouraging others. First, admonition is a means that the Holy Spirit uses for the well-being of a Christian brother or sister. We do not rebuke to score points or to win an argument, but so that the Holy Spirit might bring repentance. Second, we are to admonish with love and gentleness. We ought not to come arrogantly, pointing a finger. Instead we come alongside and identify with our brother or sister in love and compassion. Third, we are to come humbly, seeking to determine the truth of the situation and to deal with the person according to the facts. The second lesson we learn here is that no individual regardless of office, or stature, or reputation, is beyond error and so beyond the necessity of reproof. Peter was a great man, chief among the Jerusalem apostles. He was loved and recognized by all Christians that knew him or had heard of him. None of this, however, deterred the apostle Paul from rebuking him publicly. God reminds us to treat no one as if he were beyond error. We must not exalt men to a level with Scripture. Those of us who are pastors, church officers, and professors of theology need to understand we are not above mistake, error, and sin. When we err or sin, it is good for us to be rebuked. From Peter’s failure in Antioch several important truths can be learned. The first is that even uniquely gifted ministers of the gospel can commit serious transgressions, sometimes becoming guilty of the very errors and sins they once strongly preached against. Despite Peter’s divine calling and giftedness, he manifested feet of clay. Second, we learn that faithfulness involves more than believing the right doctrine. Right doctrine without right behavior always produces hypocrisy. Third, we learn that truth is more important than outward harmony and peace. Christian fellowship and unity are built on truth, never falsehood. Compromise can do nothing but weaken the church. ‘The bond of peace’ (Phil. 4:3) is not peace at any price but peace based on God’s Word and established by God’s Spirit. Fourth, we wee that situation ethics is ungodly ethics. God’s Word, not a given human situation, determines what is right and wrong. Fifth, we learn that falsehood is not to be ignored, regardless of the consequences that opposition to it may bring. When the falsehood strikes at the heart of the gospel, as did the heresy of the Judaizers, opposition is all the more imperative.

For next time: Read Galatians 2:16-21.

Galatians Notes.doc p. 57 29-Oct-11