A new study published in the Religion, Brain and Behavior Journal explored the idea that behavioral models displayed by religious parents are often what crafts their child’s future beliefs. It found when parents are insincere and unfaithful, their offspring have a more difficult time believing their (professed belief) to hold truth. (https://relevantmagazine.com/life5/study-those-raised-by-religious-hypocrites-turn-to-atheism-later-in-life/)
Galatians 2, reports the events in Antioch, where the hypocrasy of the Apostle Peter causes negatively impacted 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 had 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 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)
We must avoid hypocrisy in presenting any “Deviation from the Gospel” as seen through:
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. But 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. Cephas is the Aramaic form of Peter (Brannan, R., & Loken, I. (2014). The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible (Ga 2:11). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.)
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 (Acts 1–12) and that which centered on Paul (Acts 13–28). But in Antioch these two men of God came into head-on collision. The incident of vv 11–14 should probably be dated in the period following Barnabas and Paul’s return to Antioch after their mission in Cyprus and South Galatia (Acts 14:26–28). (Bruce, F. F. (1982). The Epistle to the Galatians: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 128). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.)
This Antioch was in Syria (as distinguished from Antioch in Pisidia). Antioch was a major trade center in the ancient world. Heavily populated by Greeks, it eventually became a strong Christian center. In Antioch the believers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). Antioch in Syria became the headquarters for the Gentile church and was Paul’s base of operations (Barton, B. B. (1994). Galatians (p. 59). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.).
• Allowing a problem to develop in Antioch therefore, could have ramifications in all the other regions where the Gospel would go out. 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”. The word “opposed/withstood” is from anthistemi which means “to set one’s self against, to withstand, resist, oppose.” This verb usually implies that the initial attack came from the other side. It was Peter, in Paul’s mind, who was the aggressor. Although not intentional, yet in effect it was an attack on the position which Paul was maintaining at Antioch. The verb carries the meaning of hindering or forbidding, and was usually applied to defensive measures. 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. (Wuest, K. S. (1997). Wuest’s word studies from the Greek New Testament: for the English reader (Vol. 3, p. 69). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.)
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.
Paul specified that he opposed Peter to his face or openly. His approach was designed to be corrective. There is an important concept here. Public sin deserves public reproof. Private sin should be corrected with private reproof. 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. But we must seek to preserve the unity of the body of Christ and faithfulness to God’s Word. Whether the issue is a minor disagreement over taste or a major crisis regarding the truth, love must be communicated to all involved (Barton, B. B. (1994). Galatians (p. 60). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.).
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 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. Finally:
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)
• If we ever seek to diffuse situations or resolve conflict, these are the things exactly not to do.
We must avoid hypocrisy in presenting any “Deviation from the Gospel” as seen through:
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 (cf. 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. He had already learned not to call anything that God has cleansed unclean (Acts 10:9–23) (Longenecker, R. N. (1998). Galatians (Vol. 41, p. 73). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.)
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.
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 7:14-23 14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 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.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (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.
How this is to be lived out was explained in Romans 14
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 hupostello, 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.
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.
This is as Proverbs 29 warns:
Proverbs 29:25 [25]The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is safe. (ESV)
• 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.
• 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?
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. In A.D. 398 he was appointed patriarch of Constantinople, where his zeal for reform antagonized the Empress Eudoxia, who had him exiled. Although she 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)
• When we don’t fear what others may think of us, and are faithful to the word of God, that kind of holy boldness turns the world upside down.
Finally, we must avoid hypocrisy in presenting any “Deviation from the Gospel” as seen through:
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.
• Whenever the exercise of our liberty is of primary importance over the impact that this can have, harmful results usually follow. Most people, when they get into a destructive habit, respond with defenses that this is only their own business, and they are not hurting anyone else. But friends, parents and the impact on a community can be significant. Even when a person is not concerned about their own actions, usually someone else is negatively impacted and has to pick up the pieces.
Barnabas was led astray/carried away by the legalistic hypocrisy of Peter and the others. 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. 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. 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.
• Hypocrisy is how people-pleasers navigate their way through difficult situations where competing social pressures are in play. They resort to putting on a mask in order to make it through an otherwise awkward situation. When we fear social ostracism, we’re tempted to play the hypocrite. We’re tempted to reach for the mask to cover up our true convictions when we’re worried about what others might think of us if they know who we truly are. Recognize as well that the more willing we are to be crucified with Christ, the less likely we are to playact around others (Wilson, T. (2013). Galatians: Gospel-Rooted Living. (R. K. Hughes, Ed.) (p. 69). Wheaton, IL: Crossway.).
Please turn to 1 Timothy 5
The last thing people in positions of responsibility must do is primarily consider popular opinion. When there is a clear teaching from scripture, a whole hearted devotion to the truth is in order. 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).
The honor and accountability is spelled out in 1 Timothy 5:
1 Timothy 5:17-25 17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” 19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. 22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure. 23 (No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.) 24 The sins of some people are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later. 25 So also good works are conspicuous, and even those that are not cannot remain hidden. (ESV)
Galatians 2:11-13 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. Your life can either be a picture of or a barrier to, the truth and impact of the gospel.
(Format Note: Outline and some base commentary from MacArthur, J. (1996, c1987). Galatians. Includes indexes. (46). Chicago: Moody Press.)
