02.05. ESSAY NO. 5

ESSAY NO. 5

Inasmuch as "the truth of the gospel" hangs there­by, Paul lays a broad, deep foundation for his inde­pendent apostleship. This foundation consists of three parts: first, he received his apostolic commission di­rectly from heaven; second, the original apostles un­derstood that his apostleship was different from theirs, and gave him full endorsement and fellowship; third, when Peter made a mistake at Antioch, he cor­rected him. Previous essays have dealt with the first two parts. This essay treats the third part. (Galatians 2:11-18).

Peter’s Mistake

Peter’s experience in connection with Cornelius, the first heathen Gentile to become a Christian, convinced him that Christ was for all races and cultures of men. When the church in Jerusalem contended with him for eating with "men uncircumcised," he championed the cause of the Gentiles so effectively that the Jews be­gan to accept uncircumcised Christians into the church. A little later, Antioch became the cradle, and still later, the citadel and missionary center, of Gentile Christianity. When Peter visited this great church, he engaged freely in social intercourse with its Gentile members, as was his right and custom, until some rigid legalists, who would impose circumcision on baptized Gentiles, came from Jerusalem. Then, "He drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation." But when Paul "saw that they walked not according to the truth of the gospel," he resisted Peter, the leader, "to the face because he stood condemned" (Galatians 2:12-14). Remarkably strange that Gentile Christians suddenly became unfit associates for Peter! Is there to be one church for Jews and another for Gentiles? The difference between Paul and Peter was not in doctrine, for both spoke "as the Spirit gave them ut­terance." They agreed that Christianity without addi­tions from Moses would make full-grown Christians. But Peter, under pressure of the Judaizers, ceased in Antioch to fellowship Gentiles as he had been doing since Cornelius several years before. He had not changed his faith, however; he only acted as if he had. In doctrine, he stood firm; in conduct, overawed by men, he failed. This was "dissimulation," or hypocrisy.

Here are some things to warn and fortify us all. The fact that all the Jewish brethren in Antioch, including Paul’s old and tried friend, Barnabas, (how much sleep did Paul lose over this?) were carried away, shows the mighty power of bad example. And if bold Peter and good Barnabas became hypocrites, for whom is hypocrisy impossible? The base motive, "seeking the favor of men," led these two men of good intentions to disguise their attitude toward the law and to pervert the gospel of grace. "The fear of man bringeth a snare" (Proverbs 29:25). Probably, they did not realize that they were hypocrites. And hypocrisy of which its victim is unconscious is the worst form of hypoc­risy. For Christians to curry favor of men, from whom their calling certainly and definitely separates them, is, any time and anywhere, perilous.

Peter Corrected

Ever after Cornelius, Peter knew that God made no distinction between Jew and Gentile, but that he freed both religiously from the unbearable yoke of the law, cleansed both by faith in Christ, gave both the Holy Spirit, reconciled "both in one body unto God through the cross having slain the enmity thereby," made "in himself of the two one new man, so making peace," and that both equally had through Christ "access in one Spirit unto the Father." Peter knew too much to be guilty of his conduct, and his slowness to see the implication of his retraction is astonishing. Oh, the weakness and fallibility of even good men! To Peter, who had possessed this vast wealth of unforgettable knowledge (can men forget what they learn by experience?), and had lived accordingly for years, Paul said something like this: "Your ignoring Jewish scruples respecting circumcision, meats, days, and such like, at first, that you might fit smoothly in­to the life of this Gentile church was your Christian liberty and duty. But your reversing yourself when Judaizers came has involvements of extremely disas­trous consequences. Remember, Peter, that you and I in becoming Christians discarded as a means of salva­tion all our unavailing legal advantages over lawless sinners of the Gentiles, took our place beside them as condemned sinners all, and, since no man can be justi­fied by law, were justified even as they by God’s grace through our faith in Christ. Your going back to Moses implies that you are correcting the mistake you made in giving him up for Christ. Do you not see that your conduct will be interpreted as inability of faith in Christ to satisfy human need, and as inadequacy of Christ himself to fulfil the deeper and higher longings and aspirations of the soul? Dear brother, remember your speech in the meeting at Jerusalem. How can you be such a great transgressor as to pervert the gos­pel and to make Christ a minister of sin?" (See Galatians 2:14-18).

Who, knowing Paul of the Acts and of his epistles can doubt that he reasoned and pleaded wisely, tear­fully, and successfully? Who, knowing Peter of the gospels can doubt that he, in bitter weeping and true repentance, was restored to become a better and stronger man than ever? Two big men met in this incident face to face and heart to heart. Peter was good and great enough to acknowledge his mistake when it was made known to him, and to respect and love Paul evermore for the rebuke and correction (See 2 Peter 3:15). Had not the truth of God and the souls of men been at stake, would Paul have written the Galatians about his having corrected Peter? When they read about it, could they still doubt Paul’s apostolic knowledge and authority?

Peter was so human—impulsive, energetic, basically honest; an ambitious man of action and magnetic lead­er of men; a man given to rashness and shrinking from ridicule. His faults were but shadows of his vir­tues. He always needed a wise friend of deliberate mind and sound judgment for restraint and balance— an eye for his hand. For a few years he had such a friend in Jesus. At Antioch he is in character. Had not Paul saved the situation, would not the caste system have entered the church to rob her of her gospel of pure grace and liberty?