Peter came from Jerusalem to Antioch. The first thing to note is Peter’s freedom then. He enjoyed fellowship with all the believers, Jews and Gentiles alike. To “eat with the Gentiles” meant to accept them, to put Jews and Gentiles on the same level as one family in Christ.
Raised as an orthodox Jew, Peter had a difficult time learning this lesson. Jesus had taught it while He was with Peter before the Crucifixion (Matt. 15:1–20). The Holy Spirit had reemphasized it when He sent Peter to the home of Cornelius, the Roman centurion (Acts 10). Furthermore, the truth had been accepted and approved by the conference of leaders at Jerusalem (Acts 15). Peter had been one of the key witnesses at that time.
In this final historical incident Paul related how he found it necessary to oppose even Peter, the reputed chief of the apostles, for conduct which threatened to compromise the gospel. The contrast with the previous section is dramatic. Paul had risked his life to carry the Gospel of God’s grace to the regions beyond, and he was not willing for the enemy to rob him or his churches of their liberty in Christ. It was this vigilance that led Paul into another dramatic encounter, this time with the Apostle Peter.
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 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. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (ESV)
KEY TAKEAWAYS:
- While conflict is never easy, Paul was willing to confront Peter to defend the gospel of grace and prevent further hypocrisy
- Before we criticize Peter too harshly, let’s examine ourselves to determine areas in our lives where we are being hypocrites. Is it with things we do while alone? Is it gossip or lies? Are we putting more faith in service and recognition instead of God’s grace?
- As followers of Christ, let our actions and words be motivated by the Spirit and the Gospel and not of fear.
CLOSER LOOK:
Verse 11: When Paul visited Jerusalem, Peter, James, and John gave him “the right hand of fellowship” (v. 9); but when Peter visited Antioch, Paul “opposed him to his face.” The time of 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. Antioch was the largest city of the Roman province of Syria. It became a center for missionary outreach to other Gentile cities in Asia Minor and Macedonia (Acts 13:1-3)
At any rate, Peter’s conduct in Antioch produced a tense face-to-face confrontation between two Christian leaders. After the earlier meeting in Jerusalem, the behavior of Peter in Antioch was contradictory and hypocritical. Given Peter’s immense influence, Paul had little choice but to point out the hypocrisy directly. Paul felt compelled to rebuke and condemn Peter for his actions, thus defending the gospel and demonstrating again his own independence and equality as an apostle.
Verse 12: On arrival at Antioch, Peter found Jewish and Gentile Christians fellowshipping together at mealtimes without regard to Jewish dietary laws. Paul confronted Peter because refusing to eat with the Gentiles contradicted what Peter had long since recognized, that the Gospel was for Gentiles too. Because of the vision Peter had received at the house of Simon the tanner (Acts 10:9–15, 28), he felt free to eat with the Gentiles, and did so on a regular basis. While it lasted, this was a beautiful demonstration of the unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ. But a breach occurred when some arrived from Jerusalem who were shocked at Peter’s conduct.[1] These emissaries “came from James” and belonged to the circumcision party, but it is doubtful that they had James’ endorsement. The phrase “certain men came from James” indicates that they came with the authority of James, one of the leaders of the Jerusalem church. However, it is unlikely that they accurately represented the views of James (vv. 7-10). Nonetheless Peter was influenced by their presence (and maybe something they said caused a strong reaction)[2] and slowly but surely he “drew back and separated himself” from the Gentiles. The verb tenses (imperfect) 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.[3] By such actions Peter in effect was teaching that there were two bodies of Christ, Jewish and Gentile. And that was heresy. But why did Peter create this breach? Not because of any change in theology, but simply out of fear. Once, after preaching to Gentile Cornelius, Peter courageously defended himself before the Jerusalem leaders (cf. Acts 11:18); but this time he succumbed to some Jewish friends.
Apparently Peter was fearing damage to his reputation as apostle to the circumcision. 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. He ceased to enjoy the “love feast” with the Gentile believers and separated himself from them. There are two tragedies to Peter’s fall. First, it made him a hypocrite. Peter pretended that his actions were motivated by faithfulness, when they were really motivated by fear. How easy it is to use “Bible doctrine” to cover up our disobedience.
The second tragedy is that Peter led others astray with him. Even Barnabas was involved. Barnabas had been one of the spiritual leaders of the church in Antioch (Acts 11:19–26), so his disobedience would have a tremendous influence on the others in the fellowship.
Verse 13: Peter’s example was so decisive that the rest of the Jews in the church at Syrian Antioch, including Barnabas, followed suit. Like falling dominoes the defection of Peter brought the defection of “the rest of the Jews” and finally “even Barnabas.” The pressure must have been great for Barnabas to succumb because he was from Cyprus, a Gentile center, and was involved in a missionary program with Paul to reach Gentiles with the gospel. Peter’s actions did not represent conviction, but hypocrisy. All of them—Peter, the other Jewish Christians, and Barnabas—were guilty of hypocrisy because while confessing and teaching that they were one in Christ with Gentiles, they were denying this truth by their conduct.
Verse 14: Peter’s hypocritical example implied that Gentiles had to behave like Jews in order to receive God’s grace. The response of Paul was electric. What Peter had initiated created a public scandal and therefore deserved a public rebuke. Further, the defectors conduct was not in step (or were not acting) according to “the truth of the gospel,” that is, they were denying by their actions the truth that on the basis of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection Jews and Gentiles who believe are accepted equally by God. Paul therefore asked Peter before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” It was a stinging rebuke. Peter’s response is not recorded. He stood condemned. He was acting contrary to his own convictions, was betraying Christian liberty, and was casting a slur on fellow believers. Such behavior needed this type of severe reprimand. It had already been decided (vv. 1-5) that it was not proper to compel Gentiles to live like Jews because salvation was through faith alone.
Before we criticize Peter, perhaps we had better examine our own lives to see how many familiar Bible doctrines we are actually obeying. As you examine church history, you see that, even with a complete Bible, believers through the years have been slow to believe and practice the truths of the Christian faith. When we think of the persecution and discrimination that have been practiced in the name of Christ, it embarrasses us. It is one thing for us to defend a doctrine in a church meeting, and quite something else to put it into practice in everyday life.
What is “The Circumcision”
The Fact that a certain group in the early church was referred to as “the circumcision’ (Gal.2:12) reflects how deeply controversial the ancient practice of Circumcision had become by the first century A.D. Originally mandated by God as a sign of His covenant relationship with Israel (Gen. 17:9-14), circumcision became a mark of exclusivity, not only among the Jews, but among the early Jewish Christians.
Circumcision involved the surgical removal of a male child’s foreskin. The Hebrew people came to take great pride in this rite. In fact, it became a badge of their spiritual and national superiority. This attitude eventually fostered a spirit of exclusivism instead of compassion to reach out to other nations as God intended. They came to regard Gentiles as the “uncircumcision,” a term of disrespect implying that non-Jewish peoples were outside the circle of God’s love. Thus, the terms “circumcised” and “uncircumcised” became charged with emotion, as is plain from the discord the issue brought about in the early church.
A crisis erupted at Antioch when believers from Judea, known as Judaizers, taught the believers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). In effect, the Judaizers insisted that a person from a non-Jewish background must first become a Jew ceremonially by being circumcised before they could be admitted to the Christian faith.
A council of apostles and elders was convened at Jerusalem to resolve the issue (Acts 15:6-29). Among those attending were Paul, Barnabas, Simon Peter, and James, leader of the Jerusalem church. To insist on circumcision for the Gentiles, Peter argued, would amount to a burdensome yoke (15:10). This was the decision handed down by the council.
Years later, reinforcing that decision, the apostle Paul wrote the believers at Rome that Abraham, “the father of circumcision” (Rom. 4:12), was saved by faith rather than by circumcision (4:9-12). He declared circumcision to be of no value unless accompanied by an obedient spirit (2:25-26).
Paul also spoke of the “circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11), a reference to His atoning death which “condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3) and nailed “the record of debt that stood against us” to the cross (Col. 2:14). In essence, Paul declared that the new covenant of Christ’s shed blood has made forgiveness available to both Jew and Gentile and has made circumcision unnecessary. All that ultimately matters for both Jew and Gentile is a changed nature-a new creation that makes them one in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:14-18).
[1] Donald K. Campbell, “Galatians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 595.
[2] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald B. Allen, H. Wayne House, eds., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 1999), 1521.
[3] Donald K. Campbell, “Galatians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 595.