creating a free account
creating a free account
Galatians
Chapter 4 – Paul’s Fourth Defense: His Willingness to Publicly Expose Peter’s Compromise
Galatians 2:11 - 14
Rebuking a peer does not get many people wound up besides the person rebuked; however, rebuking someone considered your superior seems to cause more of an uproar. There is typically more of a “Who do you think you are?” response when we rebuke a superior. This is precisely what happened when the much-maligned Paul rebuked the much-beloved Peter. In the Judaizers’ minds, Peter was Paul’s superior, but in Paul’s mind, they were peers.
Galatians 2:11 - 13
11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
It is assumed this incident happened before the Jerusalem Council, but its exact occurrence is unknown. Why did Paul confront Peter in such a public forum? Paul’s concern was that Peter, and the others were not practicing the gospel they allegedly preached. And since we all know that people tend to follow what you do more than what you say…this was a real problem. You see, Peter, for better or worse, was a leader whom others followed.
When Peter originally arrived at Antioch, he fellowshipped with Gentile Christians at mealtimes without regard to Jewish dietary laws, but a rift occurred when certain brethren were shocked to see Peter’s non-Kosher practices. Peter was influenced by their presence and began to withdraw from the Gentile believers and effectively rebuild the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles. The verb tenses indicate he did this slowly, hoping no one would notice. However, others did notice, and they began to follow his lead. Like falling dominoes, the defection of Peter brought the defection of the other Jews and finally even Barnabas.
Antioch was a critical ministry center because it was the third-largest city in the Roman Empire and because the first missionaries to the Gentiles were sent out from the church in Antioch. This was ground zero of Gentile/Jew relationships.
Those two groups were getting along simply fine until Peter showed up. They even ate their meals together, which was a huge step for the Jewish converts since it meant leaving behind the kosher laws of their childhood.
Who were these certain men who allegedly came from James? As James, the brother of Jesus, was the head of the Jerusalem church, these men were from the church. The question is, were they sent from James, or had they merely come from James’ church of their own accord? Most scholars seem to feel that the men merely came from the church in Jerusalem on their own and were not sent to Antioch by James. In any event, their presence now caused Peter to at first waffle and then ultimately withdraw from the Gentile converts to Christianity.
Peter’s actions were rationalized as a means of reducing tension/persecution from the Judaizers in Jerusalem toward those who were converting to Christianity
Why did Peter bow to this pressure? Several explanations are offered:
- Peter is, by nature, consistently inconsistent. He was often the first to proclaim truths and the first to abandon them at the first sign of trouble.
- Peter’s prejudicial roots ran deeper than he had imagined. Therefore, his initial prejudices resurfaced in the presence of others who were so like-minded.
- Peter did not want to lose favored status in Jerusalem. Peter was held in high regard in Jerusalem, and he did not want to lose any social status there.
- Peter felt pressure due to increasing persecution and tension in Jerusalem toward Jews who converted to Christianity. In other words, how Peter acted in Antioch had adverse effects on the Jewish converts in Jerusalem. If this is true, his fear is not of the Judaizers present in Antioch but of the unconverted Jews still in Jerusalem, antagonizing the church there.
The fact that Barnabas, who was from Cyprus, a Gentile center, and involved in a missionary program with Paul to reach Gentiles with the gospel, succumbed to the pressure suggests this last explanation is correct. It is difficult to see Barnabas succumbing to any of the other scenarios.
Antioch had been the model for Gentile/Jewish relationships up to this point. So, the fact that a breach is developing there does not bode well for the rest of Christendom. Paul quickly ascertains the damage that is being done and reacts by rebuking Peter. Ironically, although the Jerusalem leaders had asked Paul not to forget their ministry as he pursued his own, they forgot about his ministry to preserve their own. So, Paul is compelled to call Peter out on his hypocrisy.
Galatians 2:14
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
Peter must be rebuked because the truth of the gospel was at stake. Paul supported compromise for the sake of the gospel, but he never supported compromising the actual gospel.
Some believe Paul made his comments with a tinge of sarcasm or rudeness. Rudeness or sarcasm is simply something we read into the text; it does not come from the text. We do not know the tone of his remarks and should not be read into them.
At any rate, public errors must be corrected publicly. Peter had publicly offended the Gentiles, so amends had to be made publicly. Private rebuke would not have worked here. Why? Even if Peter had changed his behavior after a private rebuke, it would not have necessarily conveyed the admission that Peter was wrong.
The Gentiles needed a public apology and affirmation. They were slighted in public, and they must be affirmed in public. Here is the problem: Peter’s hypocrisy had to be proclaimed as publicly as it had been propagated. It had to be made clear that what he did was wrong. This is why Paul felt it necessary to point out to everyone that Peter did not put into practice what he preached in principle! Peter had not departed from the correct doctrine; he had simply deviated from the proper practice. From this text, it becomes clear that Peter had not considered that he could deny the gospel by his actions. As Christians, we need to become much more conscious of the implications of our actions, for we can deny in practice what we preach in principle.
Please go to Observations & Applications for Galatians 2:11-14 for further observations and applications.
In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul writes of his rebuke of Peter for compromising the gospel. He points out Peter may be preaching the gospel, but he was not living the gospel he preached. Paul’s emphasis here is...
The more fully we understand the gospel, the more consistently we should seek to live it
Peter is often easy to pick on…he provides lots of material. Here we see an example of someone who, in trying to avoid conflict, created it. Peter’s capitulation was fear-based.
Proverbs 29:25, “Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.”
Nevertheless, let us be quick to commend him for his response to the rebuke as evidenced at the Jerusalem Council, which followed shortly after this incident (see Acts 15:6-21).
We see that at the Jerusalem Council, Peter and James were the two strongest supporters of Paul. They spoke out clearly in defense of Paul’s gospel and denied the teaching of the Judaizers. The practical prohibitions placed on the Gentiles at the end (vv. 20-21) were only intended to prevent further division and strife recurrences.
It is always easier to state the truth than to live it out in practice. If you constantly state your Christian worldview to your unsaved family, friends, and co-workers but you inconsistently live out your Christian worldview…you might as well not state it anymore because people watch more than they listen.
In Essentials Unity; In Non-Essentials Liberty; In All Things Charity
Most church conflicts fall into one of three categories. The first category is essential doctrine, but that is the one that causes the least conflict. Disputes in this category might involve the following things: Is the Bible the Word of God? Is Jesus the Son of God? Is Jesus the only way of salvation? Did Jesus rise from the dead? Do we believe in the Trinity? Rarely is there a church that splits over important biblical teachings.
The second and third categories cause the most trouble. The second category is non-essential doctrines. More churches split over non-essentials than they ever do over essentials.
This category deals with conflicts where there are disagreements over matters that are not directly discussed in the Word of God. Examples of this would include things like when to schedule your services and how many services to have. Another might be the style of worship. Should the church offer contemporary worship or traditional? This is why many churches offer contemporary and traditional services…they are trying to avoid conflict over non-essentials.
The third category of conflict is arguing over whether a particular conflict belongs in Category 1 (Essentials) or Category 2 (Non-Essentials). The greatest arguments occur in this area. One person says, “This is clearly taught in the Bible,” and another says, “No, it is not. It is just your opinion or preference.”
And so, the battle begins. Here is the problem with the motto, In Essentials Unity; In Non-Essentials Liberty; In All Things Charity. This motto only works if we agree on what is essential and what is not. Yet having said that it remains true that even if a person intellectually admits that some preference to which they hold is non-essential, they can still emotionally hold to the preference as if it is essential and thus there will still be conflict!
The Gentle Art of Confrontation
Not everything is worthy of confrontation. The way it is done is just as important as the fact that it is done. There are four levels of processing conflict:
1. Recognition of symptoms
This is the level one diagnostic phase. At this level, we are aware that something is not right, and we may feel disturbed in our spirits. There is a sense of distance…we feel ourselves or the other person pulling away.
2. Information gathering
At the next level, we seek to find out if we can discover what has happened and why. We look for patterns and hints to confirm or refute our suspicions.
3. Analysis
This is when we decide if confrontation is necessary and helpful. We must consider whether we have concrete evidence or only vague suspicion. At this level, we should struggle with our motivation for moving toward confrontation. Do we care for this person or are we simply delighting in pointing out their errors? We also evaluate the fallout from a confrontation and the fallout if we do not confront.
4. Confrontation
This is the critical phase. Can we confront it in the right way with the right attitude? Do we have a spirit of humility or a spirit of vengeance? Are we willing to confront in the right setting at the right time with the right approach? The setting should be conducive to what we are trying to accomplish. There may not be a perfect time and place, but there is usually the best time and place. Some approaches work better with some people than others.
Abraham Maslow, the pioneering psychologist, was fond of saying, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail!” Some folks only have one style of confrontation: the hammer. The hammer may not work best in getting your point across, so you must consider the best way to achieve your objective. The goal of confrontation should always be reconciliation and correction, not embarrassment and humiliation. If reconciliation and correction are not your goal, then do not confront it. Find someone who is willing to confront the person for the right reasons.
When necessary, rebuke and correction should be based on principle, not on our personal preferences. When we deem rebuke necessary it should always be dealt with on the smallest possible scale. If we can deal with it privately, so much the better; however, public correction is necessary where public error has publicly corrupted others.