# 6: 4-24-09

Galatians 2:11-14
Since the beginning of this letter, we have seen that Paul has been establishing the basis of his apostleship
and his gospel, which had come under attack by false teachers who had come to Galatia. Drawing from his
personal testimony, Paul showed that he had been commissioned as an apostle by Jesus Himself the
highest authority and that it was also Jesus who had given Paul his gospel.
Pauls visit to Jerusalem fourteen years later demonstrated that the gospel he received was the same gospel
that the apostles there taught; the one and only gospel, which cannot be added to, taken from, or changed.
This proved that Paul was an apostle on par with not subordinate to the other apostles in Jerusalem
they had all be divinely ordained, and presented the Divine message.
As Paul continued his testimony, we will see him relate an episode that occurred in Antioch. The record of
this incident serves a dual purpose: it provides the ultimate demonstration of Pauls divine authority, and it
generates a foundation for Pauls discussion of justification by faith in Jesus Christ alone the main point
of his letter.
As Paul has been recording events chronologically, we can take it that this incident occurred sometime after
his visit to Jerusalem, fourteen years after his conversion.
2:11-12 By this time, the conference in Jerusalem concerning the basis for salvation had taken place. Paul
and Barnabas had returned to Antioch, along with two of the leading men from Jerusalem, Judas and Silas.
They had read the letter from the Jerusalem assembly to the assembly in Antioch, confirming the basis for
salvation was believing in Jesus and that alone. And they had exhorted and strengthened the brethren in the
truth (Acts 15:4-32).
This incident almost certainly occurred before Paul left on his second missionary journey, for Barnabas is
present with Paul, and after this, they will split up (Acts 15:36-41). Paul and Barnabas were only in
Antioch about a year between missionary trips; it was during this time that Peter would have come to visit.
This around 50-51 AD.
We arent told the reason for Peters visit to Antioch; perhaps just to see the work that the Lord was doing
there. We are told that when he came, Peter ate freely with those in the assembly in Antioch, which was a
mixed assembly, but composed mostly of Gentiles.
At that time, the church assembled in homes, and partook of a communal meal together. This went back to
the earliest days, in the church. Turn to Acts chapter 2. Luke records the practice of the church following
Pentecost, in Jerusalem.
[Acts 2:42-47]
v. 42 The apostles doctrine was the doctrine of Jesus His teachings which included the OT Scriptures
and His own revelations. So the new believers were instructed in the truth; and they had true fellowship
with one another, and with the Father and the Son (1 Jn 1:3).
The breaking of bread here refers to the Lords Supper the bread and the wine, which Jesus commanded
His followers to partake of, in remembrance of Him. They also assembled together to pray, to seek the
Lords mind on matters. All of these things nourished the Life of the Spirit within them.

# 6: 4-24-09

v. 43 This is a holy awe, a reverence for God, that came upon men, as they witnessed the miraculous works
that apostles were doing, which authenticated the message they preached, that it was of God.
v. 44-45 The community of believers shared their possessions with one another. This was especially
critical in Jerusalem, as those Jews who professed to believe in Jesus were shunned by the unbelieving
Jews, so that many of them lost their livelihoods.
v. 46-47 The believers continued to go to the temple, but not to worship, as the worship there had become
corrupted by the practice of Judaism. So why did the believers go there? To witness to the unbelieving
Jews who gathered there.
Where the breaking of bread in v. 42 refers to the Lords Supper, in accord with the other spiritual
practices mentioned in that verse, breaking bread in v. 46 is speaking of common meals and meals in
common; communal meals. Notice that they broke bread from house to house; that is, they took meals with
one another. This doesnt mean every meal they ate, but when possible, the believers would eat together.
Why would they do that? Because its a great time to have fellowship, with one another and with the Lord.
Dont we find that to be true, even today? The sense is that this was a frequent perhaps even daily
occurrence. Many believe that a communal meal preceded the taking of the Lords Supper together,
following the pattern of Jesus with His disciples, on the night He was betrayed (Mt 26:17-29).
By this time, there were more than 3000 members in the Body of Christ in Jerusalem. Do you think they
could gather in one home? Obviously not. So we see that they broke bread from house to house; they
gathered into smaller groups, in many different homes, probably the largest homes; and the groups were
likely to have been loosely structured, so that individuals went to different homes on different days. After
all, they were members of one Body; not one certain home church.
As the Lord continued to add to His church daily those who were being saved, they would be added into an
established home fellowship, and new ones would spring up. It was a dynamic, flexible Body, secured only
by their unity in the Holy Spirit.
Now, this passage spoke of the church in Jerusalem, which was composed of virtually all Jews. But we see
this pattern regarding communal meals continued in the churches which came into being later, including
those which were principally Gentile, such as in Antioch.
An example of this can be found in Pauls first recorded letter to the assembly in Corinth, which had both
Jewish and Gentile brethren. Paul instructs them in the appropriate way to take the Lords Supper together,
which was to be distinct from their communal meals (1 Cor 11:20-34).
[Return to Galatians 2]
During Peters stay in Antioch, he had taken part in those communal meals, eating together with both
Jewish and Gentile brethren, breaking bread from house to house; and no doubt, most of those were Gentile
houses. Peter was present in Antioch at least long enough to make it evident that this was his regular
routine.
Verse 13 makes it clear that the Jewish believers in the assembly of Antioch also ate with the Gentile
believers. And why wouldnt they? Because Jews and Gentiles in that day never ate together; they always
took their meals separately; not even under the same roof.

# 6: 4-24-09

The Jews saw themselves as a people set apart unto the Lord. By natural decent, they were sons of
Abraham, as was made manifest by the mark they took in their flesh eight days after their birth the mark
of circumcision, which showed them to be Gods covenant people. The Lord had also given His Law to the
Jews, and they believed that in keeping it, their own righteousness would earn them entrance into the
Kingdom of heaven.
On the other hand, the Jews considered the Gentiles to be lawless ones, and outsiders to the covenant of
God; they were certainly not Gods people. Since the Gentiles were considered, and even called by Jews
sinners, the Jews believed that contact with Gentiles would render them ceremonially unclean; defiled
before the Lord.
Food was considered a point of contact; even entering a Gentiles house was considered to be defiling. So
Jews and Gentiles were usually mutually exclusive especially at mealtimes.
But were the members of the assembly in Antioch Jews and Gentiles? No they were former Jews, and
former Gentiles; there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28).
Why not? Because if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation. Old things have passed away; behold, all
things have become new (2 Cor 5:17) all things. The members of the new creation in Christ Jesus are
born-again sons of God; they are therefore neither Jew nor Gentile; those distinctions pertain only to the
flesh.
Each member of Christs Body has been washed, has been sanctified, has been justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6:11). That means theyre clean, according to God; and
Hes the only one who counts. Both Jewish and Gentile believer have been cleansed by the blood of the
Lamb.
Is this the way Peter would have viewed it? Yes. I want to take you back in the history of the church to see
why, of all people, Peter would have believed this to be true.
Turn back to Acts chapter 10. The time is about a decade or so after Pentecost, which was when the Holy
Spirit was poured out on the Body of Christ, anointing it for its ministry: to reconcile men to God. That
reconciliation began right away in Jerusalem, initially bringing in a harvest of souls from the Jews.
Some of these were Hellenist Jews Jews who spoke Greek as their first language, who had been raised in
the Greek culture. It was principally the believers that were former Hellenists who carried the gospel out of
Jerusalem and the region of Judea into Samaria and further into Gentile territory. Of course, they tended
to preach the gospel to their fellow Jews; after all, they were the people of God, right? So the Jews saw it.
Not long before the time frame of Acts chapter 10, Saul had been called by God the man who would be
the Lords apostle to the Gentiles. The Lord had revealed the gospel to Saul; and by this time, it was likely
Saul was safely sequestered in Tarsus, to avoid the persecution that had arisen against him in Jerusalem.
All had been made ready for a new work that the Lord was about to initiate to visit the Gentiles and take
out of them a people for His name (Acts 15:14). And the one that the Lord would prepare for this work was

# 6: 4-24-09

Peter the unofficial leader of the apostles, who would be instrumental in convincing those in Jerusalem
that this was indeed the Lords will.

To Peter, the Lord had given the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 16:19). What are keys used for? To
open doors. The keys that the Lord gave to Peter were the gospel truths. Peter had opened up the kingdom
of heaven to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, through the gospel he preached; now he would use that same
key to open up the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles.
Following a stay in the persecution that had been raging in Jerusalem, the Lord took Peter out on a little
missionary trip. He visited the believers in the surrounding region of Judea, including those in Lydda and
Joppa, by the Sea. These cities contained significant Gentile communities.
Through two miracles that Peter did in these cities, many people in the surrounding region chose to believe
in the Lord, and were saved. This region included the plain of Sharon, which extends upward to Caesarea
a Gentile city.
This is where chapter 10 picks up.
[Acts 10:1-20, 28-29, 34-35, 44-48; 11:1-3, 17-18]
10:1-2 Caesarea was essentially a Roman city the seat of the Roman government in Judea. Half a legion
of soldiers were regularly stationed there. Cornelius was a centurion a captain of one hundred men, and a
career soldier.
Luke records that Cornelius was one who feared God a god-fearer a Gentile who was drawn to the
God of Israel, who perhaps attended synagogue, and worshiped there but who had never actually
converted to the religion of Judaism.
Cornelius was devoted to the God of Israel, praying constantly to Him, and giving to His people. But
Cornelius was still ignorant to the fact that there was a way that could take him into the presence of God; a
way in which he could be saved, which was one subject of his prayers before God (Acts 11:14). The Lord
would now show Cornelius that Way.
v. 3-8 Cornelius had a vision of a heavenly messenger, who gave him specific instructions from the Lord to
send for Peter; Cornelius followed the instructions, sending three of his men to fetch Peter in Joppa.
v. 9-10 The three men approached Joppa around noon. At that time, Peter had gone up to the rooftop to
pray, and the Lord gave Peter a vision, as well. Note that Peter was very hungry.
v. 11-16 In the vision, Peter saw something like a great cloth, made of fine white linen, which came down
from heaven, gathered together at its four corners. It contained animals, most of which were considered
unclean by a Jew, in accordance with the Law of Moses.

# 6: 4-24-09

For a Jew to take these in would have been defiling and so Peter shrinks back in horror from the Lords
command to rise to the occasion, and kill, and eat. Yet the Lord corrects Peter, that he must not call
common profane what God cleansed what He sanctified. The vision was repeated three times.
What did it mean? Peter didnt understand at the time, but the Holy Spirit eventually enlightened him, as
He has enlightened us.
From the tabernacle, we know that fine white linen pictures the righteousness of Christ. The animals both
clean and unclean are all held in its embrace. The cloth has four corners picturing the righteousness of
Christ, that will go out to the ends of the earth, through the gospel.
Who do the clean animals represent? The self-righteous Jews, who were kept under the Law. And the
unclean animals? The lawless Gentiles. Yet theyre all mixed up within the sheet; theyre in contact with
one another; theyre together. In the mind of a Jew, that would render them all common - defiled; but not
so in the mind of God. Truly both were once defiled, but not any longer, for now, they are all wrapped up
in the great white cloth.
He who knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor
5:21) were all wrapped up in Christ, in His righteousness. Peters vision was of the church, the Body of
Christ.
The Body of Christ is composed of former Jews and former Gentiles, both of whom were saved, not by
works of righteousness that they have done, but by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the
Holy Spirit to their spirits (Titus 3:5). Their origin was from heaven, foreordained in the plan of God; and
their destiny lay there also, just as the great white cloth had descended and ascended back to heaven, as if
by an Unseen Hand.
Well, Peter had only enough time to wonder what this vision meant, when the men from Cornelius showed
up.
v. 17-20 Although Peter did not yet understand the vision, he hearkened to obey the voice of the Spirit.
Did he connect the Spirits word about the three men seeking him, with the threefold vision he had
received? Perhaps not right away, but when he came down and saw that the men were Gentiles, he might
have begun to see a glimmer of light, with the unclean animals in the vision.
Peter learned from the men that they were to bring Peter to the house of the centurion Cornelius in Caesarea
to hear what Peter had to say to them in accordance with the vision given to Cornelius. The Spirit had
told Peter to go with them, doubting nothing; so Peter did.
This meant that Peter was to be in contact with the Gentiles something he as a Jew would have abhorred.
But was Peter any longer a Jew? No he was a Christ One. He had been freed from the Law free to
obey God at His word.
So Peter invited these Gentiles into the house where he was staying. As it was late, he lodged them
overnight; and no doubt ate with them all of which he would have shirked from doing before.
By the time Peter was ready to go to Caesarea the following day, his eyes were completely open to what it
is that the Lord was meaning in the vision. Peter understood the words he was to share with Cornelius, a
Gentile, were the words of Life the gospel. He anticipated that the gospel would be received by
Cornelius, and others there, as the Lord was clearly purposing this.

# 6: 4-24-09

Not only that, but Peter could actually see that God intended to open up His kingdom to the Gentiles and
that they would be fellow brethren before God with the Jews both equal members of the Body of Christ.
Finally, Peter had come to recognize that all men are defiled, until they are made clean by the blood of
Christ equally clean, eternally clean.
Now, how can we know that Peter understood all of this? Because he took some of the brethren from Joppa
with him former Jews. What for? For witnesses. Later in the account, we learn there were six of them;
with Peter, that makes seven; a perfect, complete, Jewish witness to what God was about to do. Peter was
looking ahead when he would inform Jerusalem about this new development with the Gentiles, and he
surmised he would need the support of witnesses to convey the reality of it.
So Peter went to Caesarea, and met Cornelius, who had invited friends and relatives over to hear Peter all
Gentiles, no doubt. This is what Peter said upon entering the house of Cornelius.
v. 28-29 You can see that Peter completely understood and accepted what God showed him in the vision by
now.
Cornelius then related details of his vision, and Peter shared the gospel with them. This is how Peter began.
v. 34-35 Peter was saying that he recognized that all men were equal before God; a recognition that the
Jews were not better in any way than the Gentiles, in the eyes of God. God is looking for the one who
draws near to Him, such as Cornelius, that God might draw near and share the One through whom they can
be completely accepted Jesus.
As Peter continued to share the gospel, he spoke of those who are willing to believe in Jesus that they will
receive remission of their sins. And as they listened to Peters words, Cornelius and the other Gentiles did
just that they placed their faith in Jesus to save them. This is what happened next.
v. 44-48 So the Lord poured out the Holy Spirit upon these believing Gentiles, and they began to speak
with tongues known foreign languages an audible testimony that they had received the Holy Spirit with
power.
The Jewish brethren were astonished but it would seem that Peter was not. After all, the Lord had
prepared Peter for this conversion of the Gentiles. Unto Peter had been given the keys to the kingdom of
heaven; and he had just opened the door to the Gentiles, who entered right in.
Peter then commanded that these newly believing Gentiles be baptized with water, as a public testimony
that they had believed into the Lord Jesus. No doubt it was the Jewish brethren who baptized them; a
visible reminder to them that these Gentiles had been cleansed, just as they had by the blood of Jesus.
I think it is clear that Peter and the Jewish brethren would have stayed with Cornelius and the other
Gentiles, as they requested. It must have been a unique time of fellowship together, as the barrier between
Jew and Gentile was taken down in Christ.
After this, Peter and the Jewish brethren went up to Jerusalem. News of what happened with the Gentiles
had preceded their arrival.
11:1-3 Well, that was a unhappy reception. Here, the Lord had done a great new work and all that those
in Jerusalem can see is that Peter violated some social taboos. In Scripture, those of the circumcision

# 6: 4-24-09

refers generally to Jews, but in this context, it points more specifically to those who were the great
advocates of circumcision the legalistic Pharisees.
The Pharisees were consumed with the idea of ceremonial purifications; of keeping themselves separate
from all that was unclean especially those unclean Gentiles. It was the believers who were former
Pharisees who would have immediately stumbled over Peter associating with Gentiles and eating with
them, never considering the marvel of what God was doing among the Gentiles.
It is not surprising that the believing Jews would resist the idea that the Gentiles were also the heirs of
salvation. The religion of Judaism had changed the Law with their oral traditions.
The Lord had purposed the Law to keep the nation Israel separated unto Himself from all that is unholy;
Israel was to be sanctified; separated unto God. But religion had changed the Law into a means of
excluding the other nations; Israel used the Law to keep herself separated from the Gentiles.
The Jews were trained up with this interpretation and extension of the Law, and so came to consider the
Gentiles as grossly inferior to themselves, and contact with them degrading; therefore they would, of
course, resist the Gentiles being brought right alongside them as their equals.
But the Lord had prepared Peter for this resistance, and had provided him with many indicators which
demonstrated the Lords hand in the matter. Peter then boldly recounted the entire incident, point by point.
Peter testified to the visions given to himself and to Cornelius; he related how the voice of the Spirit had
directed him to go with the Gentiles; and finally, he told of the remarkable result: the Gentiles had believed
into the Lord.
But the most amazing thing of all was the evidence shown that God accepted the Gentiles in the same way
and on the same basis as the Jews for there was the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, in the speaking in
tongues, heard by all the Jewish brethren present whom Peter, of course, had brought with him as
witnesses. This was the same manifestation of the Spirit that was given to the believing Jews on Pentecost.
Peter then summed it up.
v. 17 Peter both vindicated his own conduct as well as confirmed Gods acceptance of the Gentiles through
the conclusive evidence of the Holy Spirit. Peter could not withstand God; would the other Jewish
brethren?
v. 18 The Jewish brethren were awed by the evidence of God in the matter, and they understood that God
was accepting the Gentiles on the same basis that He had accepted them by faith and that it put them on
an equal basis, as well the believing Gentiles received Life everlasting.
This was a completely revolutionary thought to them that Gentiles had the same standing as them but
they recognized the hand of God in it, and they glorified Him for what He was doing. They would not
withstand what God was doing.
It was about a decade later that Paul and Barnabas came up to Jerusalem with Titus to discuss with the
church there the basis for salvation, because of the false teachers in Antioch. At that time, Peter spoke in
strong defense of the gospel of grace. Well just refresh our memories of that again in Acts chapter 15.

# 6: 4-24-09

Remember that Paul and Barnabas began to give their report to the assembly in Jerusalem, concerning the
conversion of the Gentiles, and then some of the believing Pharisees interjected their thoughts that these
Gentiles must be circumcised and must keep the Law; something Jewish proselytes always had to do. After
much dispute, Peter boldly addresses the assembly.
[Acts 15:7-11]
You can see that Peter held firmly to what the Lord had showed him, understanding the equality of the
believing Gentiles to the believing Jews. His logic is inescapable; the Gentiles were already saved, just as
the Jews had been by simple faith in Jesus. What would be the point of putting the Law on them?

This completely silenced the dispute in the assembly. As we learned last week, the conclusion they came to
was that the assembly in Jerusalem confirmed Pauls teaching that salvation was by grace through faith
alone, works apart.
[Return to Galatians 2]
This incident took place only a short time after the conference in Jerusalem. Peter had been taking the
communal meal in Antioch for some time, along with Paul, Barnabas and the other Jews.
But then, certain men came from James. By using the name of James and not just saying the men were
from Jerusalem, Paul was most likely marking these men out as members of the leadership in the Jerusalem
church.
They are further qualified as those who were of the circumcision whereas the simple term Jews is
used in the next verse. This may allude to the great advocates of circumcision the Pharisees. We saw that
there were believing Pharisees at the conference in Jerusalem; they were the ones who initially contended
about the Gentiles keeping the Law, and being circumcised (Acts 15:5).
The believing Pharisees may have come to agree in principle to the equality of the Gentile believers with
the Jewish believers, but practice was another issue entirely. In Jerusalem, they were still accustomed to
following their routine adherence to the Law, especially in terms of ceremonial purification, something that
was ingrained in the Pharisees as a way of life.
The believing Pharisees no longer viewed the keeping of the Law as the way to receive Life everlasting;
they had come to believe that Jesus was the only and complete way to enter the kingdom of heaven. But in
Jerusalem, they would not have had any significant exposure to the Gentiles; so when they came to
Antioch, they no doubt did what they were accustomed to doing; they partook of their ceremonially clean
food separately from the Gentile believers.
As astonishing as it may seem, having taken the position of unofficial advocate for the believing Gentiles
for the last decade, and having participated many times in the communal meal in Antioch, Peter chose to
withdraw from the Gentile brethren, separating himself from them along with the Jews from Jerusalem.
Why would Peter do such a thing? Paul relates in his account here that Peters motivation was fear; he was
afraid of those who were of the circumcision. The term Paul used for withdrew refers to a strategic
military withdrawal. It would seem Peter feared an attack from these Jewish brethren, based on their zeal
for the Law, and his laxity concerning it.

# 6: 4-24-09

The term that Paul uses for separated describing what Peter did aphorizo is where the name
Pharisee comes from aphorismenoi, the separated ones. Again, we have the sense that these were
former Pharisees legalists who would be inclined to raise a questioning brow toward the liberty of others.
Would you say that this was a holy fear, on the part of Peter? No this was a fear for self. It involved selfpreservation, and self-interest; a concern with appearance, and not with substance.
Peter could talk about the Gentile believers having been made clean, and being equal with the Jewish
believers. He could be free when away from Jerusalem, away from critical eyes. But under the scrutiny of
the strict legalists, Peter proved to be a coward, and withdrew. The fear of man brings a snare (Prov 29:25).
It was not the first time that Peters fear ensnared him in sin (Mt 26:69-75).
Peter probably rationalized his decision to withdraw and separate himself on the basis that he didnt want to
cause the Jewish brethren from Jerusalem to stumble concerning his freedom. And he probably rationalized
further that it was really no big deal for him to keep the Law, if he wanted to; after all, he was free. And he
probably rationalized further still that when the Jewish brethren returned to Jerusalem, he would go back to
eating with the Gentile brethren again.
Rationalizations can create quite a smokescreen, cant they? They can completely mask the truth. But the
Spirit of truth is intent on making the truth known. In this case, He will use Paul to blow away Peters
smokescreen. Peters deed would be viewed in the Light.
But before the Holy Spirit brought Peter to account, the effect of his choice rippled throughout the
assembly in Antioch.
v. 13 Sin affects everyone involved in this case, the entire assembly in Antioch. When the Jewish
brethren in Antioch saw that Peter withdrew and separated himself with the Jerusalem brethren from the
Gentile brethren, they followed in suit. After all, Peter had a reputation in the eyes of men; he was likely
viewed as the chief of the original apostles he was seen as one of the pillars in Jerusalem, as Paul had
written.
The Jewish brethren in Antioch looked up to Peter. So they withdrew from the Gentiles as well. Things got
so out of control that even Barnabas separated himself from the Gentiles Barnabas, who had been the one
to head up the work in Antioch, and continued to be a leader in that assembly!
The NKJV uses the word hypocrite and hypocrisy to describe their actions; but this is not the real
meaning in the Greek. The Greek carries the meaning of play-acting. Thats a little different. A
hypocrite is one who pretends to be better than they really are.
But that was not what Peter and the others were doing. They were concealing what they truly believed, out
of fear. Peter and the other Jewish brethren really did believe that there should be full fellowship between
Jew and Gentile in the Body of Christ, and had been living their lives accordingly. Yet now, in the presence
of these former Pharisees, Peter and the Jewish brethren in Antioch were acting as though they routinely
upheld the Law.
The most shameful part of this is to consider that the Gentile brethren may have already chosen to adopt the
recommendations of the Jerusalem assembly concerning things from which to abstain, in the interest of the
unity of the brethren key dietary restrictions and sexual promiscuity which were so offensive to the

# 6: 4-24-09

10

Jews. You can see that they would likely have given these things up already for Loves sake. And now,
despite this loving sacrifice, they were being shunned.
Beside how unloving the actions of Peter and the Jewish brethren were, their pretence also carried with it
the potential for disaster. Already the unity of the assembly in Antioch was in jeopardy. Paul saw this and
so was compelled to expose their sin.
v. 14 So Paul was put in the position of opposing and reproving Peter, to his face. Why? Because Peter
was to be blamed (v. 11) that means he stood condemned. By whom? By the Holy Spirit, who convicts
believers of their sins (Eph 4:30, 5:13). The Holy Spirit condemned Peters conduct as sin; and he needed
to repent of it.

But what exactly had Peter done wrong? Was he not free to keep the Law, or not to keep it? Yes Peter
was free as long as his freedom did not cause his brother to stumble. All things were lawful to Peter but
all things were not helpful (1 Cor 6:12).
For the great advocate of Gentile freedom and equality to withdraw and separate himself from them
especially after first eating with them sent an insidious message to both Jewish and Gentile brethren
within the assembly. That message was that the Gentiles were apparently less equal than the Jewish
brethren; they were just second rate believers.
The Jewish brethren then felt pressed to follow Peters lead, while the Gentile brethren were left thinking
something quite dangerous: that in order to be a first-rate believer, one must uphold the Law.
This came perilously close to what the false teachers had been trying to put on the Gentile believers in
Antioch. The only difference was that they made the Law and circumcision a condition of salvation a
difference that might become blurred over time, and lead to a perversion of the truth of the gospel. That
leads right back into religion.
This is why Paul writes that Peter and the other Jewish brethren were not straightforward about the truth of
the gospel; although perverting the gospel would be the farthest thing from Peters mind, his pretense
would lead to just that thing.
Notice that Paul confronted Peter before them all we have a sense it was before the whole assembly in
Antioch, or at least those involved but you can be sure it did include those of the circumcision from
Jerusalem.
You may think this was a little tactless or unkind on the part of Paul but it is important to remember that
Peters sin was spreading throughout the entire congregation; a little leaven leavens the whole lump (Gal
5:9). This sharp and public correction was completely necessary, in order to stay the corruption that Peters
conduct was causing by voicing the truth.
Paul made the point that Peter had been living in the manner of the Gentiles that is, free concerning the
Law. That exposed him completely to the brethren from Jerusalem, but Peter had been right to live that
way. It was the way Paul lived among the Gentiles, and if Peter had the courage to stand with Paul on the
matter, it might have been a very good witness to those legalists about their freedom in Christ. As it was,
Peters conduct confused the issue and caused division instead.

# 6: 4-24-09

11

Paul also pointed out that by his play-acting, Peter was compelling the Gentiles to live as Jews. This is the
one and only occurrence of the Greek verb for Judaize to live as a Jew. Peters conduct was essentially
pressing the Gentiles into the bondage of the Law the very thing he had said that no one should do to
them (Acts 15:10).
How do you think Peter would have reacted to Pauls confrontation of him? Im sure he was humiliated,
initially. Peter was one who had an unfortunate track record of supersized blunders yet when he saw he
had sinned, he was quick to admit it. And Peter would not have missed seeing it; he had a tender heart for
his Lord that the lapse in fellowship would have been immediately apparent to him.
I think it most likely that Peter would have confessed his sin publicly, which would have gone a long way
toward mending the rift he had caused by his conduct in Antioch. His tenderness toward Paul is borne out
in his second epistle, written near the end of his earthly life ( 2 Pet 3:14-18). It is clear Peter bore Paul no
malice; perhaps afterward, he was even grateful for the correction.
Meanwhile, Paul himself had acted on behalf of Love, which required him to do some sharp chastening in
this case. But he did so for the sake of the Body of Christ, and it served to reinforce his authority with the
church in Galatia, showing the Lord to be the ultimate authority over all the apostles.
We will see next week that Pauls direct confrontation of Peter transforms into a discussion concerning the
basis of justification.