COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS

LESSON NUMBER 9

Chapter Two, Verses 11-14

“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

I OPPOSED HIM!

“When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong“ (NIV).

              There comes a time when the love of God and His truth must dominate our love for one another. In our time, this is not a fashionable procedure. I have no doubts that Paul’s conduct toward Peter would not be approved by the religious leaders of our time. He would be viewed as factious, contentious, and judgmental of his brethren—particularly of an Apostle of the Lamb. The first commandment, it must be remembered, relates to God Himself. The second relates to our neighbor (Mk 12:30). It is never in order to reverse those priorities.

              Paul “opposed,” or “withstood” Peter to the face. He knew nothing of being intimidated by men. Peter was no ordinary man, yet his error was still inexcusable. Notice, the confrontation was public, and not private—” . . . I said to Peter in front of them all” (v.14). The sophist would object to this procedure, pointing us to Christ’s instruction to take a brother’s fault to him privately (Matt 18:15). That instruction, however, is not meant for this type of situation. Peter did not sin against Paul personally. This was a matter of contradicting the truth of God—truth of particular importance.

              There was no controversy between the two Apostles. Paul had already said Peter and those with him had extended the right hand of fellowship to him. I am impressed with the glaring contradiction of Paul’s conduct with the psychological approaches of our day. Here is an example of the love of God being predominate—something exceedingly rare in our time. “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me,” declared our Lord (Matt 10:37). Here is a man that lived that out. We do well to learn from him. No man, regardless of position, is above the rebuke of the person that walks in the light as Jesus is in the light! Here is an example of rebuking “with all authority” (Tit 2:15).

              Keep before you the purpose of Paul in bringing up this occurrence. The Galatians had embraced the Law principle again, as opposed to the “law of faith” (Rom 3:27). The Apostle is showing them that, quite to the contrary, we are to be zealous in maintaining the freedom for which we have been made free (Gal 5:1). It is possible for faith to so dominate the human spirit that nothing will be allowed to compete with, or overthrow, that precious gift.

FEARING THE PARTY

“ For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray” (NIV).

              Peter conducted himself in keeping with the Spirit of the New Covenant UNTIL those enslaved to law made an appearance. These were “men from James,” the brother of our Lord, and author of the book of James. These men were believers, but they had not advanced very far. They still had a heart for the Law and its rituals (Acts 21:18-20). Mind you, this did not cut them off from God. They were still accepted in Christ. Being considerate of them, Paul had taken a temple vow, and joined some of them in a fast (Acts 21:23-26). However, the incident being contemplated did not involve a consideration of the Jews, but of the Gentiles. While Paul would not disrupt the elementary faith of these Jews, he would allow it to be forced upon the gentiles. Law-binders always exert more pressure to conform!

              Peter altered his conduct to please the Jews. He had freely received the Gentiles, eating with them. But when “certain men from James” appeared, he “withdrew” from the Gentiles in deference to their immaturity. Peter was motivated by the fear of man in this error. He was afraid of the “party.” Alas, he is not the last one to fall into that snare! Many a preacher, teacher, and leader has compromised his conduct because of a fear of the party! How this differs from the spirit of faith. “The LORD is for me; I will not fear; What can man do to me?” (Psa 118:6; Heb 13:6).

              Paul does not speak tolerantly of Peter’s conduct, as well as those that “joined with him.” He calls their behavior “hypocrisy.” It was more related to the Pharisees than to the Lord Jesus (Matt 23). Their reaction was completely out of harmony with the spirit of Christ, and would not be tolerated.

              Notice the strength of Peter’s action., “Even Barnabas” was caught up in the “dissimulation” (KJV), being “led astray.” The legalistic spirit is highly infectious, constraining people to comprise their convictions and violate the truth, just to keep favor with law-binders. God’s people must have nothing to do with such compromise. It is never right to give in to those wedded to Law, or those with a party spirit. It is always wrong and worthy of the sternest rebuke!

ACTING IN LINE WITH TRUTH

“When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” (NIV)

              It is possible for gifted, informed, and strong believers to act in contradiction of the truth. In the case of our text, the truth involved the acceptance of all men, Jew and Gentile, through faith. Truth makes no provision for the rejection of, or prejudice against, one that has received “the love of the truth.” Keep in mind, Peter was Paul’s senior, both in Apostleship and years. Yet, his action caused that distinction to be significantly narrowed.

              The public nature of Paul’s rebuke reveals the character of spiritual life. Having been reconciled to God, those that live consistently with that reconciliation oppose everything that contradicts it. If the Gentiles had been received by God, it was gross hypocrisy to claim identity with God while rejecting people He had received. You must be able to see the relevance of this to our time and particular religious affiliation. Many a sectarian is quite willing to claim identity with seriously deficient brethren simply because they are affiliated with “the movement.” Conversely, some strong and exemplary brethren are rejected simply because they are NOT affiliated with “the movement.” If Paul rebuked Peter publicly for dissimulation, it seems out of order to be congenial toward those that are even more consistent in withdrawing from selected brethren.

              It is a tragic thing to fail to act “in line with the truth.” You see that it is not enough simply to have the right position. Our lives must be consistent with it. Something else is apparent in this text. Anti-truth behavior is damaging to the souls of men. Is infects the soul with the virus of rebellion, and constitutes one a hypocrite. “For this reason, public sins require public rebuke. As it is written, “Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful of sinning” (1 Tim 5:20).

              Contrast the reaction of Paul to that of the Galatians. Paul zealously opposed drawing the Gentiles into a system of Law. The Galatians, on the other hand, zealously embraced “another Gospel,” which accented Law and diminished faith and grace. By example, Paul shows them the seriousness of their defection. The old wineskins of Law cannot contain the fresh wine of the New Covenant. That is the meaning of our Lord’s parables, as found in Matthew 9:16-17. Let every soul learn from this passage to be zealous to maintain appropriate containers for the new wine of the Gospel. Systems and Law cannot advantage the person that has been freed in Christ, and upon whose heart and mind the Law of God has been written!