10. The Revelation: Independent of Apostolic Pressure - 2:11-18

The Revelation: Independent of Apostolic Pressure - 2:11-18

“But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be condemned …” (2:11)

Now we come to the second part of this chapter. It starts with “But”and that is not so good. The other contacts with Peter were good, firstly, in chapter 1 following his three years in Arabia and Damascus, and then during Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem (perhaps coinciding with Paul’s and Silas’visit to bring financial support from Antioch, Acts 11:30), but now he had the third recorded contact with Peter, and this was not good. Peter had come to Antioch and Paul writes, “I withstood him to the face, because he was to be condemned.”It is difficult to do this to a beloved brother but it is good to see that Peter accepted this rebuke, because later in 2 Peter 3:15 he wrote, “As our beloved brother Paul also has written to you according to the wisdom given to him.”I do not know whether he accepted it right away but we do know that ultimately he did accept it. This must have been very difficult for Paul and that is why I use the word loyalty. Paul was independent of the efforts of the flesh because obviously this was the flesh in Peter. We have seen the enemy’s efforts to take away their liberty; now we come to this deviation: Peter, the apostle who had opened the door to the Gentiles, prominent among the apostles in many ways had to be withstood by Paul. How difficult this must have been for Paul, but he did it, because he was loyal to the calling that he had received, to the mission God had given him.

“…for before that certain came from James, he ate with those of the nations; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision …” (2:12)

We can apply this to many different situations. We may do certain things because of pressure but this is always wrong. Let us ask ourselves, “Can this happen to me that in a similar situation I would act like Peter would?”This can happen even after much instruction. Even after Peter was shown the vision by the Lord in Acts 10:1-48, after he had been taught by the Lord Himself that what God had sanctified he should not declare unholy, after his preaching in the house of Cornelius and after the consultation that we have seen earlier in the chapter (perhaps even after the meeting they had in Acts 15:1-41, but this probably took place later), he failed in this respect. Can such a well taught man fail regarding this truth? Yes, that can happen. It can happen to the best one and so it can certainly happen to me and to you. This does not only apply to the matter of circumcision or uncircumcision, it may be applied to many other things, that we are able to deviate and follow fleshly pressure, whatever it may be.

“…and the rest of the Jews also played the same dissembling part with him; so that even Barnabas was carried away too by their dissimulation. But when I saw that they do not walk straightforwardly, according to the truth of the glad tidings, I said to Peter before all …” (2:13-14a) This was hypocrisy and I want to give you a few points about it. This walk was not “straightforward,”they were not going in a straight path. We need to walk straight. Peter was deviating, he made a detour. Sometimes we have to make a detour because the road is blocked but this kind of detour was not allowed because this was a compromise of the truth of the gospel. This great truth and the unity of the company was at stake, but, by the grace of God, the truth and the unity was preserved by Paul’s actions. So this public rebuke was very critical. Why was it public? This mistake had taken place in public and so it needed to be corrected in public and because the man who had made it was a leader. If he had given a wrong direction publicly, it needed to be addressed publicly. This is the point.

“…If thou, being a Jew, livest as the nations and not as the Jews, how dost thou compel the nations to Judaize?” (2:14b)

Now Paul gives the reason for this rebuke. He asked Peter, “How dost thou compel the nations to Judaize?”This is his first question. Let me read one very beautiful verse, “Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through this man [the Lord Jesus in the glory] is preached unto you the forgiveness of sin, and by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses”(Acts 13:38). This is very clear language. Peter knew this and here it was confirmed by Paul. This will be worked out doctrinally later in chapters 3 and 4.

“We, Jews by nature, and not sinners of the nations but knowing that a man is not justified on the principle of works of law nor but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also have believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified on the principle of the faith of Christ; and not of works of law; because on the principle of works of law no flesh shall be justified. Now if in seeking to be justified in Christ we also have been found sinners, then is Christ minister of sin? Far be the thought.” (2:15-17) This argument leads to a second question. If we, from having been justified through faith in Christ, go back to the law, Paul says, what are we doing then? Are we not making Christ a minister of sin? This is a difficult portion to understand but what Paul is pointing out here is that if we have declared that we are justified outside the works of the law and then go back to the works of the law, in whatever form it may be, we are then, in practice, making Christ a minister of sin, for we are then declaring that what Christ has done is not sufficient or even wrong, because we are going back to the law. This is the point Paul is making in this rhetorical question. But then he says, “Far be the thought, this cannot be, it is impossible.”

“For if the things I have thrown down, these I build again, I constitute myself a transgressor.” (2:18) By believing and being justified by faith in Jesus Christ we set aside the law, it has no impact anymore, but if we intend to follow the law of Moses then we become once again a transgressor.

Then, verses 19 to the end of chapter 2 deal with the life of Christ in the believer. I want now to briefly mention some points in connection with Peter’s hypocrisy to see how this was affecting others. First, Peter was leading astray, as he led some who followed him into hypocrisy, even Barnabas was carried away into this (v.13). Second, his actions taught that there was a distinction between Jewish and Gentile believers, but there were not two different missions. Thirdly, Peter sent a message to the Christians that Jewish believers must keep the law. This was a wrong message. Fourthly, Peter’s conduct destroyed the unity because as a result he and Paul would become separated. The fifth point is that his compromise was an example that even gifted servants, despite the authority they have, can go astray. Peter had great authority, he was a greatly gifted man of God but he still went astray. Sixthly, the faithfulness in doctrine must also be seen in practical things. Someone might say, ‘Yes, I am okay in the doctrine,’but the walk is significant, for it shows what you believe: the two go together, they cannot be separated. Doctrine cannot be separated from practice. Today men speak of ‘situation ethics’meaning you adapt the standards to the situation, and that was what Peter was doing under pressure, but it is not God’s way. Paul said, ‘You cannot do that.’The standard is given to us and we are to keep it, there is to be no compromise. If you open a door for compromise, you open a door for heresy. That was really what was at stake, and that was why Paul confronted Peter about these things.