Home Bible Study©
Rightly Dividing
the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15)
Established
November 2008 Published Weekly on Friday
This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our
Savior, who desires all men (and women) to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1Timothy 2:3-4)
Galatians (2:11-14)
(Lesson 05)
Greetings and
Welcome to HBS.
From this Bible
teacher’s perspective, watching students enter the classroom to learn
“something new” was a gratifying sight. Witnessing
their spiritual growth in faith and
knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ was a heartening experience that’s difficult
to express in words (Colossians 1:9-11).
My prayer for all
the people who are following HBS is that they are discovering “something new” from
scripture regularly and they are growing in faith and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. But there’s more to it than understanding what this book says and
does not say. A person could know this
book from cover to cover, but what good is that if they don’t apply its truths. Thus, it is also about ensuring God’s truths
remain in us 24/7/365 and we utilize those truths, as we go about living our
lives, in Christ Jesus, both as new
creations and as the Lord’s ambassadors as we interrelate with people
throughout the day (2 Corinthians 5:17, 20).
We also need to stay
“connected” or in close fellowship with God so as not to be carried away by the
false teaching that is so prevalent
in the world around us (Romans
12:1-2). Just because you hear or read something
that sounds plausible doesn’t mean it’s true!
If the Galatians had been less fickle
and applied this principle they may not have been so easily fooled by the teaching
of men, i.e. the Judaizers (Matthew
15:9; Colossians 2:8).
How does one
recognize counterfeit teaching? Federal Treasury
agents are taught to recognize counterfeit bills by studying the real thing. They spend hours studying every detail of real
currency so when they come across a counterfeit bill they recognize it
immediately. Conscientious Believers
study their Bibles, rightly divided, because they know God commands it (2
Timothy 2:15). But one other benefit is,
after studying God’s Truths they can recognize false teaching when they hear it or read it. Jesus Christ set the bar for Truth in this
sinful world (John 14:6-7).
********
Please
open your Bible at Galatians 2:11-12.
Peter (Cephas) Opposed by Paul
*(Bible
students do more than read their Bible.
They ask questions as they’re reading, then they search for answers to
those questions, making notes as they move along. This is how they obtain facts from their
Bible and grow in faith and knowledge of
the Lord Jesus Christ.)
Why
did Paul oppose Peter? We know after the Jerusalem Council ended the
Jewish Christians parted company with
Paul and his group in good spirits. They
shook hands in support of his apostleship and his ministry, which also means
they accepted the Gentile Believers as brothers and sisters in the faith. Let’s not lose sight of this fact as we move
along in this lesson.
So,
why does Paul have an issue with
Peter, since the text says one exists? We’ll
find the answer here in the passage. It
doesn’t always work out that way.
11: But when Cephas
came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face (not privately as before when they
met at the Jerusalem Council), because
he stood condemned. 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 (Jews or
the) party of the circumcision.
I opposed him to
his face – the
Greek word for opposed is Anthistemi (Anth-is’-tay-mee), Verb,
Strong’s Greek # 436, meaning: to establish one’s position, to stand
against, to hold one’s ground. Paul
means to say he stood eyeball to eyeball with Peter and rebuked him in front of
everyone. When you consider Peter’s
reputation among the twelve, this took a considerable amount of courage, don’t
you think?
Peter
wasn’t just any man. He was one of the
first apostles personally called by Jesus, because of his strong faith he got
out of the boat during a raging storm, and walked on the water to meet Jesus,
he was the first person to enter the empty tomb of Jesus on the morning of His
resurrection… and so much more. He was that
guy! And yet, Paul had no problem
confronting him overtly because he stood
condemned – of what?
We’re
going to answer that pertinent question, but first I mention often I use
multiple study Bibles and here’s an example why that is. The NIV and New Living translation both say,
“because he was clearly in the wrong.” These interpretations do not convey Paul’s
meaning accurately. The KJV and the NKJV
Bibles both say Peter was, “to be blamed.” These
both miss the target as well. Does it
make a difference? “Yes, it does.” The word in Koine Greek is Kataginosko (kat-ag-in-o’-sko), Verb,
Strong’s Greek #2607, meaning: “condemned,” literally, i.e. to make
a judicial pronouncement stating what punishment has been imposed on a person
found guilty of a crime; so the NASB translation actually got this one
right.
Now
let’s look at the charge. Paul’s saying,
just as a criminal has been found guilty of an offense in a court of law, Peter
is guilty of a serious wrong which can be proved. Peter stood
to be condemned because the thing he was doing ran contrary to God’s Word,
which is an absolute (Psalm 86:11; John 14:6, 18:37). This proves Peter was human just like us, and
I point this out to y’all as often as I can.
Some folks have a tendency to put people like Peter up on a pedestal and
idolize them. Don’t do that. This makes them appear to be something they
were not; they were as human as you or I, which means they were prone to sin just as we are. Paul’s actually saying he denied the true gospel (2:14).
He used to eat with
Gentiles – Paul
and Barnabas were leading the church in Antioch, Syria, which was composed primarily
of Gentiles with some Jews in the mix.
Peter visited their church regularly and shared “meals” with them, which
included the Lord’s Supper at times. If
you’ll recall from our 1st Corinthian study, the Lord’s Supper in
Paul’s day was a special meal-time event; not like it is today. Having Peter present at the table eating with
them was almost certainly an uplifting experience, but it was more than that. It was
also a stamp of approval to these Believers from the Church in Jerusalem. It meant these Gentiles had been accepted as
brothers and sisters by their Jewish counterparts.
*Remember,
Peter is associating with Gentiles and eating with them only because of his
vision from God and his experience with Cornelius and his household (Acts
10:9-16). The Jerusalem Church leaders
are aware of this because Peter explained the event in detail to them. They are also aware God is involved in “it”
because all the Gentiles were saved and received the Holy Spirit (Acts
11:15-17). However, I pointed out last
week the twelve and the Jerusalem Church members made no move to save Gentiles
after Peter’s experience because they did not receive an order from God to do this. Their ministry remained with the Jew only (Acts 11:19; Galatians
2:9).
For prior to the
coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles (2:12a). As they say, for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction. We have Peter
traveling to Antioch where he willingly ate whatever the Gentiles served at mealtime
(they had zero dietary restrictions), when something happened to change his
dining experience. All we have to go on
is what the text provides. The gist of
this passage indicates Peter’s eating activity in Antioch was customary and it occurred over an indefinite period of time.
Now,
who were these certain men from James (the
leader of the Jerusalem Church - Galatians 1:19) and in what way did they
influence Peter to change his regular
eating habits in Antioch? We don’t know. But we know from studying the outcome of the
Jerusalem Council that James, Peter,
John, the Pharisees, and the Jewish elders accepted Paul’s apostleship and
his ministry to the Gentiles. The pillars gave Paul and his group the right hand of fellowship, i.e. they
shook hands in agreement (2:9).
Therefore,
these certain men may have been from James but they were not acting under his expressed authority (Acts
15:13-21). We know they were Jewish Christians, from Jerusalem, who still
observed the Mosaic Law. Jewish converts
didn’t abandon the Law after they came to believe in Jesus Christ (Acts
21:21-25).
In
what way did they influence Peter to change his regular eating habits? Once again, we don’t know. But since these certain men obeyed the Law, they clearly did not to eat with Paul’s main group of converts in Antioch. I would think they found a room and ate their
meals off by themselves, in keeping with the dietary restrictions and the
purity laws imposed upon them by the Law.
We
know something about Peter too re: the Lord’s vision in Acts 10 and it brings
weight to our argument. He struggled to
understand it, even after three episodes Peter didn’t comprehend its meaning. Cornelius and his whole household were saved and received the Holy Spirit as God intended, but did Peter really understand
what God was doing? That would be no (2
Peter 3:15-16).
So
considering what we do know, what do we have?
Peter’s in Antioch eating with the Gentiles, and it’s no big deal, he
does this regularly. These certain men from James arrive, and according
to the text this means they were not orthodox Jews or non-believers. They were Jewish Christians who still obeyed the Mosaic Law. Straight up, isn’t Paul dealing
with the issue of “faith + keeping
the Law” in this letter to the Galatians?
So, we know we’re on the right track.
But it begs the question, “Why were these Law-abiding men in
Antioch, about 130 miles from Jerusalem, in the first place? That’s about a two-hour drive today, but back
then we’re talking, journey.
It’s
possible they were there to ensure this church was, “abstaining from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from
things strangled, and from blood,”
promises made at the closing of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:20). This makes Paul’s remark they were from James rational. However it’s also quite possible these certain men over-stepped their authority,
after arriving in Antioch, which makes me think they were Pharisees from
Jerusalem. This also makes sense because
they influenced Peter’s customary fellowshipping and his eating habits.
Now,
how did they influence Peter to change his eating and fellowshipping
habits? This too is an unknown detail,
but isn’t the responsibility for Peter’s behavior his alone? Verse 12b says: But
when they came, he (Peter) began to withdraw and hold
himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.
All
these folks in Antioch were enjoying the fellowship, the baked ham, the pork barbecue, the lobster bisque, and side dishes, whatever
was placed on the table during mealtime, including our brother Peter. But because Peter feared the party of the circumcision he began to reduce his social
contact with the Gentile Believers, the other Jewish Believers and Paul. Paul put it this way saying, “he began
to withdraw and hold himself aloof.” The
phrase, “began to withdraw” is a military term indicating Peter’s
departure from the main group didn’t happen suddenly. It suggests a slow retreat, i.e. in
stages. The word aloof in Koine Greek is Aphorizo
(af-or-id’-zo), Verb, Strong’s Greek #873, meaning: to mark off from others by boundaries, to
limit, to separate.
Based
on this information Peter determined to leave Paul’s group over a period of
time, eventually ending up eating only with these men from Jerusalem. These
men were dining on “kosher food” only and they were doing it by themselves. Don’t forget, this is after God revealed to Peter,
“what God has cleansed you must not call
common,” meaning there was now no
difference between Jew and Gentile (Acts 10:9-15, 34-48). In a larger sense God’s telling Peter the
barrier between Jews and Gentiles, although it had existed for 2000 years, no
longer exists: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23,
10:12).
The
negative consequence of this was now there were two separate groups at mealtime,
the Jewish party and the Gentile party. We
know Peter’s irrational behavior and this artificial barrier displeased Paul, because
he confronted Peter publicly.
The
next obvious question is, “Why did Peter fear
the party of the circumcision?” We don’t
know. However, over the years I’ve read
and been told after Pentecost Peter and the twelve feared nothing. The twelve
were “bold as brass,” as they went about serving the Lord. On occasion, yes, but 24/7; I don’t think
so. I’m not seeing it with Peter
particularly. In fact, this book has
recorded Peter’s “human frailty,” i.e. his ability to “act or speak” without
thinking things through for us on several occasions.
I
mentioned Peter had enough faith to get him up and out of the boat during the raging
storm, and he approached Jesus while walking on the water, but that storm took Peter’s
attention away from the Lord. Peter was
overcome by fear and he began to
sink causing him to cry out for the Lord’s help (Matthew 14:22-33)! In other words, he took his eyes off of
Jesus… and this was a mistake. This
pattern is repeated in scripture.
During
the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ (Luke 9:27-36), the Apostle Peter speaks
too quickly (thinks too little), in fact, the Apostle Luke said Peter did not
know what he was saying, which provoked a divine response from God
Himself. His words were spoken to James
and John, who were present, but most certainly directed at fearful Peter who spoke to the Lord in an apprehensive state.
On
another occasion, Peter was afraid
when God spoke from heaven and said how “pleased He was
with His Son Jesus…” (Matthew 17:6).
There’s another incident many people are familiar with. On the night Jesus was arrested Peter, acting
in fear and panic, cut off the ear of Malchus
the servant of the high priest who was trying to arrest Jesus. Jesus rebuked him for this action (Matthew 26:51-54;
John18:10-11). Later on that night he denied Jesus 3 times even though he
told Him this would never happen. This
was ultimately due to his weakness
and fear (Luke 22:54-62). After the other apostles had fled, Peter remained
in the shadows, following after Jesus.
He didn’t want to be seen or identified as one of His followers because
he was fearful (Mark 14-50, 54).
Long
after these events the Apostle John, one of Jerusalem Church’s pillars, wrote this: “There
is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves
torment. But he who fears has not been
made perfect in love. We love Him
because He first loved us” (1 John 4:18-19). I’m not picking on Peter for it’s a given he was
far from perfect. No one will reach
perfection or be faultless on this
side of glory. However, scripture shows us
a consistent pattern of fear and weakness combined with illogical
behavior during his life, even after Pentecost, it’s certainly on display in
Antioch.
Paul
said Peter feared the party of the
circumcision, meaning Peter allowed his fear to override sound reasoning.
This drove him to compromise his beliefs, even though he knew it was
wrong (a sin). Paul discussed the true gospel and the mysteries that had been revealed to him
re: Church Doctrine with him and the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15). God had shown him there is no difference between
Jew and Gentile (Acts 10), but fear weakened his faith, his (trust) in
God, causing him to act unwisely. Adding
insult to injury, his bad example caused the other Jewish Believers to follow
him; this included Barnabas (2:13). Paul decided a public rebuke was in order (Proverbs
29:25).
Verse
13:
The rest of the
Jews joined him in (this) hypocrisy, with the result that
even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
Paul
watched Peter, Barnabas, and the other
Jews from his group be carried away by
their hypocrisy. They all got up and
joined these men from Jerusalem,
leaving him with the Gentiles eating by themselves. Barnabas
(a Jew) was Paul’s trusted friend and coworker.
I
don’t believe the Antioch Believer’s behavior had anything to do with fear because there isn’t anything in
this passage that would indicate it. Remember,
Peter was “that guy;” one of the pillars
of the Jerusalem Church. He had spent 3 years with the Messiah. He was highly regarded, in Jewish circles, as
a leader of men. Knowing this, it’s quite
likely the Jewish Believers were influenced by his conduct and not by fear.
Because
of their poor decision Paul identified them as hypocrites. In Koine Greek the word means, “One who wears a mask, “referring to an
actor in a Greek play. Paul’s saying
these folks were saying one thing but doing another. They were not who they pretended to be.
Even Barnabas was
carried away – this
short phrase doesn’t begin to express Paul’s thoughts, I’m thinking. Barnabas was Paul’s close companion and not
just his coworker in the ministry. We
already learned Barnabas was an effective leader of the church in Antioch. He led the first missionary journey from
there with the inexperienced Paul at his side.
They were called apostles (Acts
14:4) who had “risked their lives for
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:26). What probably isn’t known about this man is
he took Saul of Tarsus, who was completely disconnected with the twelve, and
persuaded all of them to recognize him.
Later on, he found Saul in Tarsus and personally recruited him to work
for the Lord in Antioch, where he could develop his teaching and preaching
skills. Therefore, I imagine it broke
Paul’s heart when he saw him get up and leave him to join the group from
Jerusalem, in effect, using body language only, he denied the gospel along with the rest of them.
How
do we know this is where Paul’s thoughts were?
Read verse 14.
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 like
Jews?
The
Koine Greek word for straightforward is
Orthopodeo (or-thop-od-eh’-o), Verb,
Strong’s Greek #3716, meaning: to walk in a straight course, metaphor: to act uprightly. This is only place in the N.T. where this
word is used; however, our English word Orthopedic is derived from it. Our Apostle Paul understood Peter’s hypocrisy was a denial of the true
gospel. Withdrawing from the main group of Gentile Believers under these
circumstances was to deny the truth that all Believers are one in Christ
Jesus. His behavior established two
groups in the church but it was far worse than that, actually. It implied the Jewish Believers from
Jerusalem were superior to the
Gentile Believers. This could not
stand! Peter was not straightforward about
the truth of the gospel, so Paul
took drastic action. He rebuked Peter publicly.
The
gospel, from God, proclaimed that salvation for both Jews and Gentiles was by
faith (alone) in the shed blood of Jesus Christ for one’s sins (His death,
burial, and resurrection – 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Matthew 26:28; Ephesians 1:7,
2:13; Hebrews 9:15-22, 10:19; 1 Peter 5:7).
I find people telling me it was Jesus dying on the cross that saved them
and this isn’t true; the cross was only the means for His death.
We
already know Peter struggled with understanding this truth at this time and for
the remainder of his life (2 Peter 3:15-16).
When Peter withdrew from
fellowshipping and eating with his brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus in Antioch,
it implied that salvation required strict obedience to the dietary laws given
to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14). This was the body of Jewish law dealing with
what foods can and cannot be eaten and how these foods must be prepared.
Peter
was sending a non-verbal communication to the group he had just abandoned which
was, “If you desire to enjoy fellowship
with me, Barnabas, and the mother church in Jerusalem, you’ll have to become
Jews.” Paul picked up on this straight
away. We know this because he means to
stir Peter’s conscience with his next remark:
“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?
Peter
had demonstrated his liberty in
Christ Jesus, being a Jew, to live like the Gentiles. This meant he enjoyed the Gentile’s company
and their food while in Antioch. And not like the Jews means he didn’t
have to follow their strict dietary laws any longer. But now his separation from table fellowship
with Gentile Believers forced them to follow Jewish laws and customs if they
wanted to be a part of their group. In
effect, they had to surrender their liberty
in Christ Jesus and accept the burden
of the Law in order to be accepted as part of the Jerusalem Church.
Because
of Peter’s fearful, hypocritical behavior
it jeopardized the liberty of every Gentile Believer in the Body of Christ and
the future of God’s Church. If Paul
hadn’t taken a stand for the gospel, it could have been the
beginning of the end of Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles. I say this because Peter was guilty of adding works to the gospel,
i.e. keeping the law + faith as a requirement for salvation. And we know, when you add anything to the gospel, you obliterate it.
Do
you think Paul was wrong to confront Peter publicly; not according to
scripture: Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of
two or more witnesses. Those who continue
to sin (we’re talking about Peter here),
rebuke in the presence of (now watch this) all, so that the rest also may be fearful of sinning (1
Timothy 5:19-20).
How
did Peter and these certain men respond
to Paul’s rebuke? Positively, for this
book says the Gospel of Jesus Christ continued to be preached, as is (Romans 10:8; 1 Corinthians
15:1-4; 2 Corinthians 2:12; Colossians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:8).
(To
be continued)
©
Copyright 2011
GJ
Heitzman’s Ministry
All
Rights Reserved
