The Pressure cooker of popular opinion
Galatians 2:11-16
* Peer pressure can be very powerful at times.
* Most of us would not like to admit how many times we have buckled underneath it.
* We like to think of ourselves as independent thinkers, un-persuaded by what others think of us.
* Sometimes it’s people and/or their opinions of us that influence what we do and how we live.
* Peer pressure can be both positive and negative.
*Negative example -
Humor - Divorce vs. Murder
A nice, calm, respectable lady went into the pharmacy, walked up to the pharmacist, looked straight into his eyes, and said, "I would like to buy some cyanide."
The pharmacist asked, "Why in the world do you need cyanide?"
The lady replied, "I need it to poison my husband."
The pharmacist’s eyes got big and he exclaimed, "I can’t give you cyanide to kill your husband. That’s against the law! I will lose my license! They’ll throw both of us in jail! All kinds of bad things will happen. Absolutely not!
You CANNOT have any cyanide!"
The lady reached into her purse and pulled out a picture of her husband at a fancy restaurant, having dinner with none other than the pharmacist’s wife.
The pharmacist looked at the picture, surprised, and replied, "Well now, that’s different. You didn’t tell me you had a prescription."
**************************************************
* Occasionally, it’s the most unsuspecting people that are caught in the trap of giving in to peer pressure.
- Sometimes it’s leaders that end up getting led by the power of public opinion.
* If not for this passage of Scripture, you would have never guessed that the great Apostle Peter would have been persuaded by the multitude.
- After the day of Pentecost and his powerful preaching, how could Peter not be true to the message of the Gospel.
* Peter’s actions betrayed his words
* He was actually contradicting the gospel he so vigorously preached.
* By his example, he unintentionally led others away from the freedom of grace and into the bondage of works.
I. Paul’s reproof
* It’s unclear if Paul is the only one with the insight to see the seriousness of the error of Peter, or if he is the only one with the courage to stand up against Peter.
* It’s not always easy to confront those who are in error, but Paul has the courage to do so.
* Paul didn’t withstand him as an enemy
* Paul didn’t use rudeness or disrespect, but approached Peter as a friend and an apostle, with courtesy and yet with all seriousness.
A – Open v. 14
* Not for show or outward appearance only,
* Peter’s offence was public, so Paul publicly reproved him for it
* Peter’s offence was affecting the whole church…everyone in it.
* this wasn’t something that only affected 2 or 3 people in the church.
* It wasn’t limited in scope.
* Peter’s behavior was known by all in the church, so Paul confronts him before all
* Paul truly wanted to convince Peter of his mistake, and to put a stop to his conduct;
* While reproofs are not always to be publicly before the whole church, at least the individual has to be openly confronted.
* Rebuke is sometimes difficult but necessary
Pro 27:5 Open rebuke is better than secret love.
Pro 9:8 Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
B – Honest
* It was blunt and truthful.
* Paul didn’t pull any punches.
* Paul didn’t even care if the man he came face to face with was the leader and most influential person in the church – Peter himself!
* This was not an attack on Peter, it was a defense of the Gospel!
* Paul was not being mean-spirited about this, he was being completely honest.
-- Telling the truth to Peter and the church.
-- "Peter, you are wrong for this separation from the Gentiles… you are living a hypocritical life"
C – Addressed to offender v. 11
* Paul did not go to others and whisper his suspicions
* Paul did not go about as a talebearer, or whisperer, or backbiter
* Not behind Peter’s back
* Paul wasn’t seeking to undermine the influence and authority of Peter by slander; * Paul went to him at once, and he truthfully stated his views and reproved Peter for his wrong behavior.
* When someone is in the wrong, go to that person directly or keep quiet!
Mat 18:15-17 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. (16) But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. (17) And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.
D - Persuasive
--(Swindoll) “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?” (v. 14b)
In other words, “Peter, you certainly haven’t been acting like a Jew. You’ve been eating ham sandwiches with the Gentiles. And now, suddenly, you expect the Gentiles to behave like Jews?”
* How did Peter respond to Paul’s rebuke?
-- The passage doesn’t say
-- Everything leads us to believe that Peter responded to Paul’s rebuke positively.
-- This event is described nowhere else in Scripture.
(IFL Bible Study Guide - Swindoll) -- Perhaps the absence of Peter’s words in this passage indicates that he listened to Paul, that he knew Paul was right, and that he responded with maturity to the rebuke of his co-laborer in the gospel.
We do know that, at the Jerusalem Council, which convened to discuss the issue of whether Gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved, Peter spoke out in favor of releasing the Gentiles from the yoke of the Law and recognizing them as co-recipients of God’s grace (see Acts 15:6—11). He and Paul were unified on this, as was the entire council, which issued an official statement mandating that the Law not be imposed upon the Gentiles (vv, 19—29).
Peter didn’t back down at the Jerusalem Council. Rather, he publicly opposed those believers who were formerly Pharisees and their demand for circumcision for salvation (v. 5). Since most commentators agree that the council meeting in Acts 15 convened after Paul confronted Peter at Antioch, it appears that Peter did indeed leave his hypocrisy behind.
* Paul’s reproof was convincing, powerful, and persuasive
* Reproofs, responding is wise…
Pro 15:32 He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.
Pro 17:10 A reproof entereth more into a wise man than a hundred stripes into a fool.
Pro 15:31 The ear that heareth the reproof of life abideth among the wise.
Pro 15:10 Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.
Pro 13:18 Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuseth instruction: but he that regardeth reproof shall be honored.
II. Peter’s hypocrisy
* "kataginosko" = down, know – to note against, to be blamed
* Peter was condemned by himself, self-condemned,
* acting contrary to his belief,
- contrary to what he had declared in the council at Jerusalem
* Paul did not oppose Peter for opposition sake or without any foundation; * There was a just reason for it, he was responsible, and he was blameworthy;
* Peter knew it was not wrong to eat with Gentiles, …he had done so.
* God had shown him clearly Acts 10:
Act 10:1-48 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, (2) A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always. …
- blanket comes down with all manner of four-footed beast (three times)
- Peter is convinced through the vision that Gentiles are not unclean…
Quote – John Gill – Peter ate at the Gentiles own tables. ( He sat down with them and ate pork at their tables.) He knew that the distinction of meats was now laid aside, and that nothing was common and unclean of itself, and that every creature of God was good, and not to be refused if received with thankfulness; wherefore he made use of his Christian liberty, and ate such food dressed in such manner as the Gentiles did, without any regard to the laws and ceremonies of the Jews. In this Peter did well, for by this he declared …that the ceremonial law was abolished, that not only the Gentiles are not obliged to it, but even the Jews were freed from it, and that the observance of it was far from being necessary to salvation.
* Peter had felt the power of peer pressure (public opinion) before.
Mat 26:67-75 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, (68) Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee? (69) Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. (70) But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. (71) And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. (72) And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. (73) And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech betrayeth thee. (74) Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. (75) And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.
III. Peer Pressure
A. People involved in it v. 11, 13
* Look at who was affected by this peer pressure.
- Peter – the pillar of the church, the leader of the Apostles, "The Rock"
- Barnabas – a good man, full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost
- who had been a traveling companion of Paul’s among the Gentiles
- who had assisted him in preaching the Gospel to them
- was a messenger with him at the council in Jerusalem
- heard the debates of that assembly, and the issue of circumcision being required for salvation
* And yet so forcible was the example of Peter, even Barnabas buckled under the pressure
* Peter influenced other Jews , v. 13
* Can you believe it? Barnabas himself, one of the apostles of the Gentiles, and one who had been instrumental in planting and watering the churches of the Gentiles, was carried away with their hypocrisy- (hupokrisis).
B. Power of it v. 12-13
* It was not a misunderstanding of truth that led to Peter’s behavior, it was fear of man
M. Henry – " Here note, (1.) The weakness and fickleness of the best of men, when left to themselves, and how quick they are to falter in their duty to God, out of an undue regard to the pleasing of men. And, (2.) The great force of bad examples, especially the examples of great men and good men, such as are in reputation for wisdom and honour.
C. – Motivation behind it v. 12
* Fear … fear of man
* Fear of what others will say or think of us!... …that’s the bottom line.
W. Wiersbe – "Peter’s freedom was threatened by Peter’s fear. While he was in Antioch, the church was visited by some of the associates of James… No doubt they belonged to the “circumcision party” (Act_15:1, Act_15:5) and wanted to lead the Antioch church into religious legalism.
After his experience with Cornelius, Peter had been “called on the carpet” and had ably defended himself (Acts 11). But now, he became afraid. Peter had not been afraid to obey the Spirit when He sent him to Cornelius, nor was he afraid to give his witness at the Jerusalem Conference. But now, with the arrival of some members of “the opposition,” Peter lost his courage. “The fear of man bringeth a snare” (Pro_29:25).
How do we account for this fear? For one thing, we know that Peter was an impulsive man. He could show amazing faith and courage one minute and fail completely the next. He walked on the waves to go to Jesus, but then became frightened and began to sink. He boasted in the Upper Room that he would willingly die with Jesus, and then denied his Lord three times. Peter in the Book of Acts is certainly more consistent than in the four Gospels, but he was not perfect — nor are we! Peter’s fear led to Peter’s fall."
* It was the fear of rejection,.. the intimidation of people that motivated Peter’s conduct.
D. Truth contradicted by it v. 14-16
* Peter’s actions contradicted his beliefs
-- Not his actions as much as what was symbolized or taught by his actions.
--(Swindoll) Out of fear of reproof from influential Jews, he acted contrary to his beliefs.
* Peter’s actions were serious.
* He was sending mixed signals to the Gentile believers.
* He was blurring the message of the gospel and obscuring the freedom it provides.
* For the first time Paul mentions Justification!
W. Wiersbe – "But what is justification? Justification is the act of God whereby He declares the believing sinner righteous in Jesus Christ. Every word of this definition is important.
1) Justification is an act and not a process. No Christian is “more justified” than another Christian. “Having therefore been once-and-for-all justified by faith, we have peace with God” (Rom_5:1, literal translation). Since we are justified by faith, it is an instant and immediate transaction between the believing sinner and God. If we were justified by works, then it would have to be a gradual process.
2) Furthermore, justification is an act of God; it is not the result of man’s character or works. “It is God that justifieth” (Rom_8:33). It is not by doing the “works of the Law” that the sinner gets a right standing before God, but by putting his faith in Jesus Christ. As Paul will explain later in this letter, the Law was given to reveal sin and not to redeem from sin (see Rom_3:20). God in His grace has put our sins on Christ — and Christ’s righteousness has been put to our account (see 2Co_5:21).
3) In justification, God declares the believing sinner righteous; He does not make him righteous. (Of course, real justification leads to a changed life, which is what James 2 is all about.) Before the sinner trusts Christ, he stands GUILTY before God; but the moment he trusts Christ, he is declared NOT GUILTY and he can never be called GUILTY again!
Justification is not simply “forgiveness,” because a person could be forgiven and then go out and sin and become guilty. Once you have been “justified by faith” you can never be held guilty before God.
Justification is also different from “pardon,” because a pardoned criminal still has a record. When the sinner is justified by faith, his past sins are remembered against him no more, and God no longer puts his sins on record (see Psa_32:1-2; Rom_4:1-8).
4) Finally, God justifies sinners, not “good people.” Paul declares that God justifies “the ungodly” (Rom_4:5). The reason most sinners are not justified is because they will not admit they are sinners! And sinners are the only kind of people Jesus Christ can save (Mat_9:9-13; Luk_18:9-14).
When Peter separated himself from the Gentiles, he was denying the truth of justification by faith, because he was saying, “We Jews are different from — and better than — the Gentiles.” Yet both Jews and Gentiles are sinners (Rom_3:22-23) and can be saved only by faith in Christ.
Closing
* Is the fear of man keeping you from doing what’s right?
* Is fear keeping you from admitting you are a sinner, in need of a Savior today?
http://www.eaglesoartech.com/sermons
