Peter Has a Problem (No Other Gospel #8)

In the middle of Galatians 2, we have a story. It is the closing part of the historical section of Galatians and acts as a transition between this and Paul's next topic. Up to this point, Paul has been emphasizing the fact that the gospel had come directly from God and that he had preached it as an apostle; and that it was the same gospel as that which had been preached by the other apostles. All that would be put to the test in a very dramatic, practical way.

In the last passage, we saw that Paul went down to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus for a second visit 14-17 years after his conversion. While there, he had private meetings with the apostles. We don't know how long he was there, but it seems possible that events of Acts 12--the execution of James the son of Zebedee, the imprisonment of Peter, and the death of Herod--happened while Paul was in Jerusalem. However long his visit was, however, it ended and he returned to Antioch and shortly thereafter he left Antioch for his first missionary journey with Barnabas, the journey on which he would evangelize the Galatian churches. This story takes place in that space of time between his visit to Jerusalem and his first missionary journey. Paul had just visited Peter in Jerusalem; now Peter visited Paul in Antioch. (Perhaps to escape the persecution of Herod?) And this what happened.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 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. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 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? (Galatians 2:11-14)

This is a very simple if somewhat sad story. We have to bear in mind how seriously the Jews took the division between them and the Gentiles. It was a cultural difference and it was an ethnic difference. It wasn't that long ago in our culture that the idea of meeting with people of certain other ethnic groups as equal was completely taboo so we can sort of understand the idea. But it wasn't just a cultural or ethnic difference--it was a religious one. The Jews were God's people and weren't supposed to associate with the sinners of the Gentiles; they weren't to meet with them as equal; they weren't to eat with them--eating with them being a symbol of social interaction. They could meet for business, but not socially, not sit down together for a dinner.

That's why the church at Antioch was so interesting--because here Jews and Gentiles for the first time in years, were able to sit down together to a meal; for the first time, the wall between the Jews and the Gentiles was destroyed. Not to say this had never happened before--the Jews in the OT were all the time trying to copy and associate with the Gentiles, but always then it had been by turning away from God, they had been hiding and betraying the Jewishness. For almost the first time, Jews and Gentiles were meeting in their worship of God--the Jews remained Jews and the Gentiles remained Gentiles and yet they were both united before the face of God. And Peter, when he first came to Antioch, cooperated with this scheme. After all, he was the one who had Jesus appear to him in a vision and specifically tell him not to treat the Gentiles as unclean; he was the first to preach to the Gentiles (even with some opposition.)

But then something happened. A group of Christians came from Jerusalem, came from James the brother of Jesus who seemingly was the leader of the Jerusalem church at this point. The idea is that they were a prestigious delegation, VIPs of some kind. We don't know why they came or exactly what their attitude was, but we do know the result. Peter, out of fear of them, withdrew from the society of the Gentiles and went back to the traditional stand of Jews of refusing to eat with Gentiles, even Gentile Christians. And because Peter was a hip and happenin' cat within Christian circles, his attitude infected others, so that the Jewish Christians as a whole began to withdraw from the Gentiles, leading to a division in the church. Once Jews and Gentiles in Antioch had met as a single body in religious and social fellowship, but now that was becoming impossible. It was so bad “that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.”

It's always dangerous, in Biblical interpretation or anything else, to build too much off a single word. But I can't help but wonder if there is some grief and sorrow behind that word “also.” Barnabas was one of Paul's oldest friends with Christian circles. Barnabas was the one who was willing to accept Paul when all the church was against him. Barnabas had been the first to recognize God's work in Antioch. Barnabas had brought Paul to Antioch and they had ministered there together for a year. Barnabas had shared his ministry to Jerusalem and had stood with him there in his meetings with the apostles. And yet... now... Barnabas was joining with Peter and the other Jews in this act; he was helping to bring division in the church, turning his back on the doctrine he had once believed. I can't help but think that Barnabas' involvement in this was one of the deepest cuts to Paul and may have helped drive him to do what he did.

And that was to confront Peter, who was not walking uprightly, was not “walking straight” as Robertson translates, not following the truth of the gospel. He confronted him face-to-face, publicly calling him out for his conduct. Barnes: “The first thing to be noted is, that it was done openly, and with candour. It was reproof addressed to the offender himself. Paul did not go to others and whisper his suspicions; he did not seek to undermine the influence and authority of another by slander... he went to him at once, and he frankly stated his views, and reproved him in a case where he was manifestly wrong.” (Commentary, Galatians 2:11)

This is the story. Now we have to understand, Paul doesn't merely tell the story to trash-talk Peter. There are several specific reasons why Paul tells this story here and now.

First, the fact that Paul rebuked Peter testifies to Paul's apostleship. He and Peter were equals; they were playing in the same league. Apostles had a special position of authority in the church--only another apostle could meet with one face to face and condemn him. The fact that Paul gave this rebuke and that Peter (as far as we can tell) accepted it, proves their equality as apostles. If Paul (as the Judaizers claimed) was only a second-hand peddler who got his gospel from Peter, he never would have been in a position to publicly rebuke him.

There is a second point and to understand we have to see specifically what Paul said to Peter, which is the end of verse 14. “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?”

Peter was a Jew and had been brought up with the same taboos as other Jews, specifically against eating with and associating with Gentiles. He had lived like a Jew, until his encounter with Cornelius. Because of that, he was willing to put aside that part of Jewish heritage and act like a Gentile to the extent of eating with and fellowshipping with them. But then, out of fear of these Jewish Christians, he had returned to his Jewish taboo and by his example had seemed to be saying that the Gentile Christians, if they were to be a real part of the church, needed to become Jews. There was an inconsistency between the way he had acted before these others came and afterward.

The point is that Peter's issue was dissimulation, which literally means “Acting a part.” Put the best construction on Peter's actions that you want--very likely he was just trying to avoid controversy in the church--it was still a pretense, hypocrisy, a dissimulation. He was acting a part different from what he had previously done and what he believed.

And why that matters is because it shows the issue here was not doctrine. Peter admitted the principle involved--that Gentiles could be saved as Gentiles without becoming Jews--he simply chose to try to hide his conviction at one particular point. He was inconsistent in his practice, but his doctrine was the same as Paul's. Peter may have failed, at one point, to live out the gospel, but he still taught the same gospel. If he had accepted and lived by the Judaizers' gospel, then Paul's rebuke would have been meaningless. This whole incident shows that however difficult it may have been for some Jews to fully accept and implement the gospel, the gospel still remained constant--that salvation was open to both Jews and Gentiles, not through the works of the Jewish law nor through the Jewish covenant, but through faith in Jesus Christ. There was only one gospel, which both Paul and Peter taught, for this gospel did not come from man, but from God.