SLIDES

The Letter to the Galatians

Galatians 2:11-14

Part 8

Introduction

Once a spider built a beautiful web in an old house. He kept it clean and shiny so that flies would patronize it. The minute he got a “customer” he would clean up after him so the other flies would not get suspicious.

Then one day this intelligent fly came buzzing by the clean spiderweb. Old man spider called out, “Come in and sit.” But the intelligent fly said, “No, sir. I don’t see other flies in your house, and I am not going in alone!”

But presently he saw on the floor below a large crowd of flies dancing around on a piece of brown paper. He was delighted! He was not afraid that lots of flies were doing it. So, he came in for a landing.

Just before he landed, a bee zoomed by, saying, “Don’t land there, stupid! That’s flypaper!” But the intelligent fly shouted back, “Don’t be silly. Those flies are dancing. There’s a big crowd there. Everybody’s doing it. That many flies can’t be wrong!” Well, you know what happened. He got caught on the sticky flypaper and eventually died.

Some people want to be with the crowd so badly that they end up in a mess. What does it profit a fly (or a person) if he escapes the web only to end up in the glue?

Peer pressure. We have all been there and done that. We all understand why it happens to kids and adults. We know peer pressure is a cruel task master. In today’s lesson, we are going to see peer pressure occur among some the Apostles of Jesus. How could that happen? Well. The answer is that they are they were all extraordinary men, but they were human like the rest of us and still had old nature to contend with. In our lesson today, we will see that the old nature got the better of Peter, Barnabas, and other Messianic Jews who were in Antioch. Beginning with verse 11, Paul is transitioning to a new subject that certainly relates to peer pressure, hypocrisy, not doing the right thing, and not being a positive Christian example to others.  Peter was the leader of the Apostles but in this circumstance, he was not acting like it.

Galatians 2:11

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

2:11- The story now moves from Jerusalem to Antioch, Syria, Paul and Barnabas’ home church and mission’s headquarters. When Paul visited Jerusalem, Peter (and others) gave him “the right hand of fellowship;” but when Peter visited Antioch, Paul opposed him to his face. The time or the reason for Peter’s trip to Antioch is not known. There is no reference to it in the Book of Acts, but perhaps the visit occurred soon after Paul, Barnabas, and Titus returned to Antioch from Jerusalem. It seems that Peter had been in Antioch for a while before this event occured.

The verb “he stood condemned’ means his own actions condemned or convicted him or he was condemned or convicted by the opinions of others. Both seem to fit this situation. He condemned himself by his actions and in this the last part of the description of “he stood condemned” seems to fit the situation since Paul said, “I opposed him to his face.” As we’ll see in later verses, Paul was very serious about his actions and called him a hypocrite. He seems to be angry about this occurring among Christians, particularly among some of the apostles. Peter was wrong and Paul let him know it in front of everyone. Paul probably did not “get in his face” as we would describe it today. He did, however, confront him face to face. Paul looked into Peter’s eyes and told him he was wrong and a hypocrite.

What had Peter done to make Paul talk to him man to man like he did? Verse 12 gives us the answer.

12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

2:12 - Paul leads with the phrase “For prior to the coming of certain men from James” to emphasize that Peter did not have a problem eating with Gentiles, even though he was Jewish, but things changed with the arrival of the men from Jerusalem.

Peter appears to have eaten non-kosher food with the Gentile believers in Jesus. But under rabbinical Judaism, Jews were not supposed to associate with Gentiles, much less eat with them. Remember the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4 asked Jesus why was He, being a Jew, talking to her. Peter had no problem eating with Gentile believers, until some men from the Jerusalem church came to visit. When they showed up, Peter freaked out. He began to act strangely. When they arrived, he would disappear at mealtimes and try to separate himself from the Gentiles believers. The reason he would disappear during mealtimes and try to separate himself from Gentile believers during meals is because he feared those who Paul calls” the party of the circumcised.” Are these from the same group that Paul called “false brethren?” Possibly! Paul did not call them bothers. If they were of the same group, then Peter was being influenced by non-believers. If this is the case, they were not "from James" in the sense that James endorsed their views. He did not. (v. 9). Probably they were simply Jews who attended the church In Jerusalem that James pastored.

When these men came, they intimidated Peter. Proverbs 29:25 says,                

The fear of man brings a snare,

But he who trusts in the Yahweh will be exalted.

Fear bringing snare represents being caught in an uncomfortable or possibly a fatal situation. The panic-stricken believer does not react reasonably. He may do the wrong thing. Panic-stricken by what others might do to him or think of him, he cowardly yields himself to their dictates to please them. By contrast, is the one who trusts in the LORDYAHWEH to do the right thing. Peter is well known for having a tendency to compromise his convictions when he was under pressure (cf. Matt. 16:16-23; 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-18, 25-27).

I wonder if Paul brought up the fact that Jesus ate “with Tax Collectors and sinners,” which means that He did not conform to strict Jewish practice, as found in the Oral Law.

Whether Peter was being pressured by believers or unbelievers; he was still a hypocrite.  A hypocrite, of course, is a person who pretends to be something he or she is not. It’s person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives.

Even though Peter was a leader of the apostles, he was certainly not setting a good example. He knew better, yet he was driven by fear of party of the circumcision from his home church. Peer pressure can be demanding as we all know. Paul knew that he had to confront Peter before his actions damaged the church. At stake were, not only conditions in Antioch, but the future of the gospel in the Gentile world. Many find it striking that Peter, who was well known for his boldness in the face of opposition, would behave hypocritically in Antioch for fear of the legalistic Judaizers.

Because of the seriousness of the situation, Paul knew he had to take action. So, he publicly opposed Peter. Note, however, that Paul did not go to the other leaders, nor did he write letters to the churches telling them not to follow Peter’s example. Instead, he opposed Peter face-to-face. Sometimes sincere Christians, even Christian leaders, make mistakes. And it may take other sincere Christians to get them back on track. If you are convinced that someone is doing harm to himself/herself or the church, try the direct approach. There is no place for backstabbing in the body of Christ.

We can well imagine the hurt and confusion in the Gentile camp. They had been snubbed by Peter. They probably had idolized Peter, and now their idol proved to have feet of clay. The rift between Jew and Gentile might have rapidly become “a great divide” had not Paul come striding in boldly.

As we continue reading this story, please keep in mind that the early church struggled with the integration of Gentiles within church life. The matter of Gentile integration was more than just if a Gentile should be circumcised to be saved. The struggles dealt with things like Jews and Gentiles living together in unity and this issue dealt with eating meals together. The Jerusalem council dealt with this issue as we have discussed in our last lesson, but the council in Jerusalem had not occurred yet, so, they were still working on these issues. The problem for some time now has been how to integrate Jewish believers in Jesus in the church. Most churches are not sensitive to Jewish people wanting to maintain their Jewish culture. In the early church they said to the Gentiles, “Come on in and live a Jewish lifestyle like us.” Today the church says to the Jews, “Come on in and leave you Jewish culture at the door. Come in and be a Gentile like us.”

2:13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

2:13 - Peter was not setting a good example for the other Messianic Jews. As a matter of fact. Barnabas, who was also an apostle, and others Messianic Jews, joined Peter in his hypocrisy. The verb “was carried away” indicates that even Barnabas was led away from the truth by this party of the circumcision. Paul was disappointed and angry at these men.

Paul mentioned Barnabas separately, probably because Paul was especially surprised that Barnabas could be so influenced. Barnabas was Paul’s traveling companion; together they preached the gospel to the Gentiles, proclaiming Jews’ and Gentiles’ oneness with Christ. Barnabas was not from the Jerusalem church and would not have had the personal and relational stake in this that Peter had. Yet, like Peter, Barnabas was human, and for some unknown reason he followed Peter’s example.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “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?

2:14 - We should never imagine that our sin affects only ourselves and no one else. Peter did not mean for his sin to “infect” others, but it did. That is why we have to rely on God’s Spirit to help us avoid spreading spiritual disease.

Not being straightforward means “not to walk a straight course.” It speaks of walking crooked, wavering, and more or less an taking an insincere course of action such as Paul said that Peter and the other Jews were guilty of. In Ephesians 2:11-16 we see truth of the being fleshed out in Scripture which should have led to different results that we saw in Peter, Barnabas, and other Messianic believers.

11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands—

12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,

15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

The Gentiles being equal to the Jews in this new body called the church and there being peace between Jew and Gentile believers was working OK until the party of the circumcised came to Antioch and began putting pressure on Peter, Barnabas, and the other Messianic Jews.

Paul did not oppose Peter to elevate himself. Paul recounted this story in this letter to the Galatians to show that he was a full apostle and could speak authoritatively, even in opposition to another apostle if the truth of the gospel were at stake. This was not a secondary issue blown out of proportion. The confrontation fits the crisis.

Paul’s words to Peter were a stinging rebuke. Peter’s response is not recorded. He stood condemned. He was acting contrary to his own convictions, was betraying Christian liberty. Christian liberty or freedom in Christ is part of the truth of the gospel. Such behavior needed this reprimand.

Confrontation can often be awkward and harmful, but Paul was able to confront it constructively. We can learn some important lessons about how to manage this difficult aspect of human relationships by looking at Paul’s approach. First, Paul was concerned that others saw him as a person of integrity—a credible witness. Second, he was well prepared—knowledgeable, articulate, and focused. Third, he had a constructive purpose—to build others up, not to tear people down or build himself up. Fourth, he was constantly seeking God’s perspective—divine truth must prevail over self-interest or personal position. When faced with the need to confront others about their words or actions, we should follow Paul’s example of constructive confrontation.

Paul spoke to Peter publicly in front of all the others—that is, in front of the Jewish believers, the Gentile believers, the legalists, and Barnabas. Those who want to attribute other motives to Paul might ask why he didn’t go to Peter privately. Wouldn’t that have been more “peace loving or more “Christian” to do that? Remember that Peter was not the only one involved in this mess. Barnabas and other Messianic believers were also involved. But Peter’s actions had started a domino effect; and, because of his authority as an apostle, his actions had confused Gentile believers and maybe even some of the Jewish believers. A private solution to this problem was not an option. Peter’s action was public, with public consequences; the rebuke had to be public. As a leader of the Jerusalem church and the apostles, Peter was setting public policy.

Paul recorded his exact words here. Obviously, everyone knew Peter’s Jewish background; Paul’s wording indicates they also knew that Peter had set aside Jewish rituals and ceremonial laws (especially the food laws that made fellowship between Jews and Gentiles almost impossible) because of his freedom in Christ, thus living like a Gentile and not like a Jew. Did not the visions Peter had seen and his experience with Cornelius cure him of any prejudice against Gentiles? (see Acts 10) Apparently not.

Paul continues with the matter at hand. Why does Paul call out only Peter when all of the Messianic Jews in Antioch were involved in these hypocritical acts? Probably because Peter had walked with Jesus for three years and was discipled by Jesus. He was leader of the apostles and should have been the leader not to go down the road that he did. When Jesus told Peter to “tend and shepherd His’ sheep” he was not talking about feeding them with an unhealthy diet of hypocrisy. Peter had reverted back to Rabbinical Judaism. He had put man’s traditions over God’s truth and Jews over Gentiles. The actions of Peter, Barnabas, and he the other Messianic Jews caused confusion and probably resentment among the Gentile believers. As far as I know, there is nothing in Scripture the lasting effects on the church in Antioch because of these hypocritical acts by the Messianic Jews.

Application

The Dangers of Hypocrisy for a Believer:

1. Hypocrisy makes one live a double Life.

2. Hypocrisy makes one live in Fear and sometimes act irrationally.

3. Hypocrisy leads others astray.

4. Hypocrisy makes one live contrary to the Gospel.

Someone is always watching You!

In light of this passage, there is one other thing I would like us to consider. Are we sharing the gospel with all people, without any requirement other than faith in the risen Messiah? Whose footsteps are we following: Paul’s or Peter’s? The early church followed by the Anabaptist’s, long before the Protestant Reformation, believed that sinners, Jew and Gentile alike, are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. There is no other requirement, nor is there any other efficacious means. Since this is true, our attention should then turn not to our profession but our practice. Any time someone thinks that they must do something or be something before they can respond in faith to Christ’s offer of salvation, something has broken down, either explicitly or implicitly, in our communication of the good news. The church must rebuild a better understanding and practice of what it means for the gospel to be a message for all people. We must properly contextualize the gospel as a message that simply asks for a response of faith, not adherence to a particular cultural norm. When missionaries go to other counties to lead people to Christ and to plant churches, they are not going to plant American churches, but to plant churches in the context of the culture of the people you are ministering to are in.