A Domino a rectangular tile with a line dividing its face into two square ends. A popular way of playing with dominos is lining them up end to end and knocking them over. This domino effect is fun to watch when handling the physical tiles but, if it occurs metaphorically in worldwide financial markets it can be most unsettling. Credit market pressures have intensified since the weekend collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., government rescue of the AIG insurance group and fears that other large U.S. financial companies would also be dragged down. In what is being described as part of the biggest bailout package in the U.S. since the Great Depression, the White House is asking Congress to allow the government to takeover US$700 billion in bad debts. This effort to stem further collapses and inject financial capital in order to stabilize the markets would result in raising the legal limit on the US national debt from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion to allow for the bailout. All this is to end the continuing domino effect of financial collapse.
Galatians 2, reports the events in Antioch, where the fear of the Apostle Peter causes the domino effect on other Christians like Barnabas, where they changed how the acted and associated when the influential groups like the circumcision party was around. This action promoted a dangerous precedent that has the potential to undermine the truth of the Gospel and testimony of the early church.
One of the greatest challenges today to the Christian message and testimony is the domino effect where people begin to take their cues of doctrine and practice, not from Scripture, but popular opinion and practice. Often the slide is gradual and unnoticed, but effectively neutering the message and impact of the Gospel.
Consider who is taking their cues of doctrine and practice from you? Who at home, your children, spouse, your friends, family, or coworkers, bases what God expects from your actions? What in your life does not match your doctrine, and what do you do or say different when influential people are around? This lesson from Galatians 2 is a sobering look how even the greatest among us, like the Apostle Peter himself, can succumb to fear and slip into hypocrisy. Let us take heed, lest we likewise fall (1 Cor. 10:12).
In Galatians 2:11-13 Paul explains Peter’s deviation from the gospel. In this we see 1) The Clash (Galatians 2:11), 2) The Cause (Galatians 2:12) and 3) The Consequence (Galatians 2:13)
1) THE CLASH (Galatians 2:11)
Galatians 2:11 [11]But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
The Judaizers had told believers in the Galatian churches that Paul was not a true apostle.
Paul not only was equal to the other apostles but had on this occasion even reprimanded Peter (Cephas), the one who was recognizably the leading apostle among the Twelve. Both Peter and Paul had experienced salvation by grace through faith, both were directly chosen by the resurrected Jesus Christ to be apostles, and both had been mightily used by the Holy Spirit in establishing and teaching the church. The book of Acts can be divided between the early church ministry that centered on Peter (1–12) and that which centered on Paul (13–28). But in Antioch these two men of God came into head-on collision.
Antioch, in Paul’s day was renowned for its architectural splendor and strategic political importance. During the New Testament period Antioch was the third largest city in the Roman Empire and boasted a population of more than half a million. Its political importance derived from the fact that it served as the capital city of the Roman province of Syria. A series of Roman emperors beginning with Julius Caesar lavished attention and resources upon this “Rome of the East,” furnishing it with theaters, aqueducts, public baths, a great basilica, and a famous colonnaded main street adorned with a marble pavement and vaulted stone roofs (George, T. (2001, c1994). Vol. 30: Galatians (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (170). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.).
The Jewish community in Antioch formed a significant segment of the city’s population, numbering some sixty-five out of the total population of five-hundred thousand. Less than ten years before the clash between Peter and Paul, the emperor Caligula (A.D. 37–41) had instigated a virulent attack against the Jews of Antioch. During this crisis many Jews were killed and their synagogues burned. The same kind of harassment was being carried out in Palestine as well and may account for the overly zealous attitude of many Jewish Christians there concerning issues of circumcision, food laws, and adherence to worship in the temple. (George, T. (2001, c1994). Vol. 30: Galatians (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (170). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.)
Not surprisingly, Antioch became the home base for the first major expansion of Christianity outside of Palestine It became a center for missionary outreach to other Gentile cities in Asia Minor and Macedonia (Acts 13:1–3).(Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary (Ga 2:11-12). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.) It was here were the name “Christians” was first given (Ac 11:20, 26).
o Allowing a problem to develop in Antioch therefore, could have ramifications in all the other regions where the Gospel would go out.
o Getting the gospel wrong here and having a faulty lifestyle in response to it has the potential for spreading wrong teaching and practice.
Paul said that “I opposed him to his face”. Paul did not assume that God was going to directly correct Peter. He did not let Peter figure out the fault for himself or have the hypocrisy pointed out by the Judaizers or the Christians in Antioch. Neither did he wait for the other Apostles to point out Peter’s fault. Paul went directly to Peter to point out the problem.
• The question must be asked, who is responsible to directly point out sin: Everyone. If there is an aspect of behavior that you see that does not honor God you have a responsibility to point this out privately to the individual.
• Do not wait or assume someone else will do this. Ministry is everyone’s responsibility.
Paul said that he Opposed Peter. Opposed is from anistçmi, which carries the meaning of hindering or forbidding, and was usually applied to defensive measures.
• His approach was designed to be corrective. It is a defensive measure that action is taken before sin escalates.
• It is also defensive in terms of the approach. It is not to be done with a sense of superiority or self-righteousness.
• Paul specified that he opposed Peter to his face or openly. There is an important concept here. Public sin deserves public reproof. Private sin should be corrected with private reproof.
Why is reproof important:
Proverbs 15:31-32 [31]The ear that listens to life-giving reproof will dwell among the wise. [32]Whoever ignores instruction despises himself, but he who listens to reproof gains intelligence.
Proverbs 17:10 [10]A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool.
Proverbs 13:18 [18]Poverty and disgrace come to him who ignores instruction, but whoever heeds reproof is honored.
By Peter’s withdrawal from the Gentiles, he had, in effect, joined the Judaizers in belittling Paul’s inspired teaching, especially the doctrine of salvation by God’s grace alone working through man’s faith alone. Peter knew better, and Paul opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Peter was not condemned in the sense of losing his salvation but in the sense of being guilty of sin by taking a position he knew was wrong. He no doubt also stood condemned as a sinner in the eyes of the Gentile believers in Antioch, who, because they were well-grounded in the gospel of grace, were perplexed and deeply hurt by his ostracism of them.
Please turn to Matthew 18
Before Peter’s compromise with the Judaizers could do serious damage in the Antioch church, God used Paul to nip 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 worst of circumstances and what could have been a tragedy He used for His glory and for the strengthening of His church.
No one likes being confronted with failings. This situation is a great object lesson on proper biblical confrontation.
Matthew 18:15-22 [15]"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. [16]But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. [17]If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. [18]Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [19]Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. [20]For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." [21]Then Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?" [22]Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven. (ESV)
• Paul did not just ignore Peter or his sin. Nor did he gossip with others or attempt to humiliate him. He went directly to Peter in order to point out his sin and consequence.
Illustration: Since some of the best illustrations are what not to do, I offer a few tips on How to Turn a Disagreement into a Feud:
1. Be sure to develop and maintain a fear of conflict, letting your own feelings build up so you are in an explosive frame of mind.
2. If you must state your concerns, be as vague and general as possible. Then the other person cannot do anything practical to change the situation.
3. Assume you know all the facts and you are totally right. Speak prophetically for truth and justice; do most of the talking.
4. With a touch of defiance, announce your willingness to talk with anyone who wishes to discuss the problem with you. But do not take steps to initiate such conversation.
5. Latch tenaciously onto whatever “evidence” you can find that shows the other person is merely jealous of you.
6. Judge the motivation of the other party on any previous experience that showed failure or unkindness. Keep track of any angry words.
7. If the discussion should, alas, become serious, view the issue as a win/lose struggle. Avoid possible solutions and go for total victory and unconditional surrender. Don’t get too many options on the table.
8. Pass the buck! If you are about to get cornered into a solution, indicate you are without power to settle; you need your partner, spouse, bank, whatever.
(Ron Kraybill, quoted in Tell it to the Church, Lynn Buzzard, David C. Cook, 1982, p. 23)
We have seen 1) THE CLASH AND NOW:
2) THE CAUSE (Galatians 2:12)
Galatians 2:12 [12]For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. (ESV)
Peter had been in Antioch for some time before certain men came from James, and during that time he was eating with the Gentiles.
The certain men were most likely Judaizers who had come to Antioch claiming to be sent or authorized representatives from James but were not. As leader of the Jerusalem church, James (our Lord’s half brother) had summarized the decision of the council against the Judaizers, saying, as we saw last week: “It is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19). These men were of the circumcision party and not only taught a false gospel but also made false claims of support by the Jerusalem apostles and elders. Like Peter, James at times had difficulty giving up his lifelong adherence to the Mosaic rituals and regulations (see Acts 21:18–26), and he perhaps still had remnants of prejudice against Gentiles. But he would hardly have sent a delegation of heretics to Antioch to undermine the true gospel and cause the church there nothing but trouble. He would never have been the cause of discord and chaos where there was the pursuit of such Spirit-induced harmony and unity.
The imperfect tense of the Greek verb indicates that Peter’s eating with the Gentiles was continuous, that is, habitual and regular over some period of time. He ate whatever was set before him with whoever was sitting beside him. He had no doubt participated in numerous love feasts with Gentile believers and joined them in the Lord’s Supper. Until the men came from James 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.
We need to take a step back and consider what exactly was the issue in the broader context.
God had indicated in Lev. 11 certain animals ceremonially clean and unclean. There were strict restrictions against the eating of unclean food covered a variety of culinary practices, such as the consumption of pork, eating food offered to idols, and partaking of meat from which the blood had not been properly drained in accordance with the law of Moses (cf. Lev 3:17; 7:26–27; 17:10–14), as well as partaking of food not properly tithed or eating a meal without observing the ritual cleansing of the hands.(George, T. (2001, c1994). Vol. 30: Galatians (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (172). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.)
o Since there were Old covenant dietary restrictions on Jews and ceremonially cleansing rituals, this restricted what they ate and with whom. This had an impact on separating Jews from Gentiles
Jesus’ celebration of the meal with tax collectors and sinners, was regarded as a scandalous act that drew a critical response from the Pharisees and teachers of the law: “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them!” (Luke 15:2). By freely associating with notorious sinners and Gentile “dogs” in the fellowship of a shared meal, Jesus was in effect announcing the arrival of the kingdom of God in his own person. By this radical act he also was saying that the basis of one’s true standing before God (was not to) be measured in terms of obedience to the law. Of far greater eternal significance was one’s relationship with Jesus, the only person who perfectly fulfilled the law (George, T. (2001, c1994). Vol. 30: Galatians (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (172). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.).
Please turn to Mark 7
Remember the context of our problem in Galatians 2:12. Peter was not acting consistently in terms of dietary practices and fellowship. Better than any other apostle, Peter should have known that in Christ all foods were clean and all believers equal. He had heard Jesus explain:
Mark 7:18-19 [18]And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, [19]since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (ESV)
Jesus’ asserted that uncleanness originates in the heart. Throughout his epistles, cleanness is the result of obedience of the heart flowing from regeneration; it is based on the cleansing power of the Atonement (see Rom 6:19; 1 Thes 2:3–4, where uncleanness is strictly moral).
Christ’s atonement was the final cleansing agent for sin and its moral results (Heb 9:14, 22; 1 Jn 1:7), doing in reality what the Old Covenant sacrifice of blood of bulls and goats only typified.
At first the early church, with its Jewish background, found it difficult to break away from Hebrew dietary traditions. The apostle Peter was given a vision, repeated three times, about no longer calling either non-Jewish food or the non-Jews who ate it “unclean” (Acts 10:9–16; 11:1–10). Later, as we saw last week, a council at Jerusalem officially decided not to retain Moses’ ceremonialism in the church, except that gentile Christians should abstain “from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (Acts 15:20, NIV)
Please turn to Romans 14
Given what we have seen, why would the council at Jerusalem retain these dietary restrictions given that Christ fulfilled the law and certain foods, and people who consumed them, we no longer unclean, but full members of the covenant and the promised thereby? This is important lesson in the context of disagreement and the work of the Gospel.
Romans 14:20-23 [20]Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. [21]It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. [22]The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. [23]But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (ESV)
• Our liberty should never be a wedge of separation. We should never flaunt our freedom in Christ in the face of someone that is struggling with an issue. This could be in terms of entertainment choices, music, food, drink or whatever. Whenever we boast in claiming it does not violate our consciences, we separate ourselves from others.
• Verse 23 of Romans 14 deals with the implication. If we do something purely because someone else does it and are not convinced it is right, then we sin.
Now, with this important explanation out of the way, Galatians 2:12b explains the problem. When the Judaizers came to Antioch, Peter drew back and separated himself /began to withdraw and hold himself aloof from the Gentiles, fearing the circumcision party. In saying that Peter drew back/withdrew is from hupostellô, a term used for strategic military disengagement. Polibius used it to describe troops drawing back from the enemy in order to secure shelter and safety.
• The imperfect verb tenses indicate a gradual withdrawal, perhaps from one joint meal a day, and then two; or it may be that he began a meal with Gentiles but finished it with only Jewish Christians. By such actions Peter in effect was teaching that there were two bodies of Christ, Jewish and Gentile. (Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (2:595). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.)
• We need to continually check our actions by the standards of scripture and be under the scrutiny of others. Change may be so gradual in our life that we do not notice, but put against the Scriptures, the standard of truth, the deviation from the Gospel of truth can be recognized.
• In a broader scope, do you change your actions when non-Christians are near? Does your prayer change in public when giving thanks for food? Do you avoid reading scripture on breaks at work to avoid being called religious? Do you shy away from conversations of faith with other Christians if non-Christians are near?
The imperfect tense in describing that Peter drew back/withdrew may indicate that Peter’s withdrawal was gradual and, if so, suggests the idea of sneaky 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. He found excuses not to join with them in other activities and finally separated himself/aloof from them altogether.
• This is a dangerous warning to us not to be deceived. We often are gradual in our hypocrisy. Unchecked small retreats from truth will escalate to all out abandon.
The old Peter-weak, fearful, and vacillating-had come to the fore again. Here was the same Peter who under divine inspiration declared Jesus to be “the Christ, the Son of the bring God” but who a short while later rebuked his Lord for saying that He must suffer and die (Matt. 16:16, 22). Here is the same Peter who boldly declared he would die rather than deny his Lord but who, before the night was out, had denied Him three times (Mark 14:29–31, 66–72).
Here was the same Peter who was called to preach but who disobediently went back to fishing even after he had encountered the resurrected Christ (John 21:3).
• Never deceive yourself that you are just too strong to slip back into old patterns of sin. Never let pride allow you to assume you are above failure.
Peter was not fearing the circumcision party because they might threaten his life or freedom. 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 later 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.
Proverbs 29:25 [25]The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is safe. (ESV)
• Look into your own life. What are you failing to do for fear of others? Are you avoiding discussions at work or school on things of faith for fear of being branded a religious zealot? Which relative, neighbor or friend have you avoided witnessing?
• Peter was not unlike most Christians in finding it difficult to be consistent in spiritual commitment. He would show great courage and conviction and then stumble. He would staunchly defend the faith and then succumb to compromise. When he did that in Antioch 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.
Illustration: Fear, of man
Church history is replete of individuals who saw the importance of fearing God and not other individuals. Following in the footsteps of Paul, John Chrysostom had a period of isolation in the mountains near Antioch in A.D. 373. Although his time of isolation was cut short by illness, he learned that with God at his side, he could attend alone against anyone or anything.
That lesson served Chrysostom well. In A.D. 398 he was appointed patriarch of Constantinople, where his zeal for reform antagonized the Empress Eudoxia, who had him exiled. Allowed to return after a short time, Chrysostom again infuriated Eudoxia, who sent him away again. How did Chrysostom respond to such persecution? With these words:
“What can I fear? Will it be death? But you know that Christ is my life, and that I shall gain by death. Will it be exile? But the earth and all its fullness are the Lord’s. Poverty I do not fear; riches I do not sigh for; and from death I do not shrink.”
(Today in the Word, MBI, October, 1991, p. 33)
We have seen 1) THE CLASH, 2) THE CAUSE AND FINALLY:
3) THE CONSEQUENCE (Galatians 2:13)
Galatians 2:13 [13]And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. (ESV)
Peter not only withdrew from the Gentile believers himself but, by example, indirectly induced the rest of the Jews to join him in hypocrisy. The separation became so widespread and influential that even the godly Barnabas, who at this time was one of the pastors at Antioch, was led astray/ carried away into the sin. Paul and Barnabas had recently been on a fruitful missionary journey together, had gone with each other to the Jerusalem Council, and were now co-pastors at Antioch. They had taught together, prayed together, ministered together, and suffered together. They were the closest of friends and loved each other deeply. It was Barnabas who had first befriended and defended Paul when he went to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion (Acts 9:27). Many times Barnabas had heard Paul preach the gospel of salvation by faith alone and had preached it many times himself. But even he was led astray/carried away by the legalistic hypocrisy of Peter and the others. It may have been Barnabas’s 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).
Peter was a natural leader, and his public action invariably took others with him. When he acted in his own wisdom the result was tragic, and when other believers put their faith in him as a man the tragedy was compounded. The effect on the Antioch church was disastrous.
The Greek term behind hypocrisy originally referred to an actor wearing a mask to indicate a particular mood or type of character. A hypocrite is someone who, like a Greek actor, masks his true self.
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 their Lord.
Please turn to 1 Timothy 5
• When you hear a message broadcast or read an author, endeavor to inquire about their walk. Be very cautious in listening or heading the words of someone who is in personal moral failure or will not allow their lives to be scrutinized. That is why those who are in positions of authority must be beyond reproach (1 Tim. 3)
1 Timothy 5:19-20 [19]Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. (ESV) [20]As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. (ESV)
This section in Galatians also shows that faithfulness involves more than believing the right doctrine. Right doctrine without right behavior always produces hypocrisy.
Examine your own life, what are you engaging in now that you know is inconsistent with what you believe. When the falsehood strikes at the heart of the gospel, as did the heresy of the Judaizers, opposition is all the more imperative.
(Format Note: Outline and some base commentary from MacArthur, J. (1996, c1987). Galatians. Includes indexes. (46). Chicago: Moody Press.)
