Trinity Baptist Church

The Book of Galatians #6

Galatians 2:11-14

 

As we’ve already learned, Galatians was written by the Apostle Paul to refute the false teaching of a group of people known as Judaizers. They got the name Judaizers because they tried to Judaize everybody.  They tried to impose the system known as Judaism on people.

 

Paul had founded the churches in the area known as Galatia, which is not a city but an area, and they had followed him in there with their Judaizing doctrine and they had troubled the churches.

 

They have three targets in their attack: Paul’s credentials as an apostle, salvation by grace through faith, and the keeping of the Law of Moses. 

 

So Paul writes Galatians to answer these accusations. 

 

And remember, the book divides into three parts.  Chapters 1-2 are personal, where Paul deals with His credentials as an apostle.  Chapters 3-4 are doctrinal as Paul explains salvation by grace, and chapters 5-6 are practical as we see how that is lived out.

 

Tonight we come to the last part of Paul’s his defense of his apostleship. They have tried to undermine the fact that he has authority, they have denied that he's an apostle, they've said that he speaks for himself and has no right to speak for God, that the people aren't to listen to him but to listen to the Judaizers, etc., etc.  Paul defends his apostleship in three ways in these two chapters.

His first defense is his credentials.  That’s verses 10-24 of chapter one. His first defense was, "Jesus called me to be an apostle and gave me my message."

 

Then he shares his commendation from the other apostles in Jerusalem in the first ten verses of chapter two.  His second defense was, "The people in Jerusalem accredited me." 

 

Tonight we come to his third defense which I want to call

 

3.  His Confidence

 

Verses 11-14

 

His third defense is this:"You want to question my authority as an apostle?  Let me tell you about the time I sat Peter down and straightened him out." 

 

This is pretty strong.  I mean, it’s one thing to be knocked off your horse and struck blind by Jesus.  But going eyeball to eyeball with Peter?!

 

Notice what happens here: 

 

As we come to verse 11, the scene changes from Jerusalem to Antioch. Antioch was the chief city of Syria.  It was here where the ministry to the Gentiles had begun.  This is where the first church in a Gentile area was planted.  Antioch is where Paul was a co-pastor with Barnabas and three other men.

 

This passage deals with a confrontation between Paul and Peter.

 

Notice

 

- Peter's deviation

 

Is seen in verses 11-13.

 

First of all, there is a

 

Clash - verse 11

 

Isn’t that interesting?  The Judaizers said Paul was a nobody without authority.  He’s just a second-rate, self-appointed apostle with a man-mad message.  All the big-shotl apostles were in Jerusalem. 

 

So Paul says "Let me tell you about the time I told Peter off, right to the face."  What he's doing there is stating his authority. 

 

Remember all the references to these men in Jerusalem?  They are men of reputation.  They are “something”; “pillars in the church”.

 

And I would guess in Peter’s mind and everyone else’s, Peter was the most significant of them.

And yet Paul says, "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to the face because he was dead wrong.” 

 

Now both Peter and Paul were Christians, both of them were apostles, both of them were men of God who knew salvation was by grace through faith, both of them had been taught properly by the Holy Spirit, both were called of God as apostles, both were appointed by the church, both were vested with authority by Jesus Christ Himself, both were honored in the church for their leadership and example.

Both had been mightily used of God.  In fact, the entire book of Acts is virtually the ministry of Peter in the first part and the ministry of Paul in the second. 

 

They were stalwarts, the greatest of men. Yet here they are, head to head, in opposition to each other.

 

And notice how Paul explains what happened.  He uses the word 'withstood.' He says "I withstood him to his face."  It means 'to set oneself against.' It is a defensive word.  The word usually applies when the initial attack comes from another source and you set yourself in defense.

 

Understand?  Paul is saying that Peter was the aggressor and "I stood my ground and stopped his aggression." 

 

Paul sees Peter as the aggressor. Paul sees Peter attacking the gospel of grace.  I don't think Peter attacked the gospel intentionally, though there was a certain intention in what he did, but I don't think he really thought through what he was doing. He was in the habit of sticking his foot in his mouth and he was forever doing the wrong thing, hurrying in before he thought things through.

 

And evidently here, in he blunders into this thing and winds up making an attack against the Gospel and Paul stands nose-to-nose with him and tells him off.

 

Paul, why did you do that?  Verses 11 tells us, “because he was to to be blamed.”  That’s an interesting word.  Literally, it translates, “he was condemned, or he stood condemned” 

 

 

Now think about what the Spirit saying to us here:

 

He stood condemned.  In what sense? Well, one, he stood condemned by his own act. A man condemns himself. That what it says in John 3:18.  "He that believes not is condemned already because he doesn't believe." In other words, you condemn yourself by what you do.

 

When Peter did what he did, he didn't need someone else to condemn him. He had already made a fool out of himself; he had condemned himself.

 

But there’s another angle implied here. When he stood condemned, it may have been that he was condemned by the Gentile Christians at Antioch. They knew better than what Peter had done and we'll see what he did in a minute. So perhaps there was the self-condemnation and perhaps he got some flack from the Gentile Christians at Antioch.

 

By the way, if you want evidence that God can bring good out of bad, think about his:  Instead of Peter’s bad theology causing a big problem in the church, God allows it to be used as a defense of Paul’s apostleship. Do you know what that tells us?  God has a purpose in even the worst of things.

 

So first of all, there was the clash.

 

Secondly,

 

 

 

 

 

What cause the confrontation to begin with? 

 

Verse 12. 

 

So what caused the clash? What did Peter do to attack the truth?

 

Peter was in Antioch, that's obvious from verse 11, Apparently, he was there for quite a while. Now remember, there has been this controversy over whether or not circumcision is necessary for salvation.  The leaders meet in Jerusalem.  Paul and Barnabas and Titus, an uncircumcised, saved, Gentile, go to Jerusalem. 

 

They get it all hashed out, and everyone agrees that circumcision is not necessary.  Paul goes off to to minister to the Gentiles; Peter to the Jews.

 

Sometime after the Jerusalem Council of chapter 15 of Acts, Peter hustled off up there to Antioch and just hung around. He was there, and notice in verse 12, "He would eat with the Gentiles."

 

So far, so good.  Peter is putting some action to his commitment.  He was in the habit of eating with the Gentiles. He had no problem, he'd just go up there, sit down, and have the meal that was provided with the Gentiles. Enjoy a big ol’ slice of ham!

 

It was no problem; he knew it was the right thing to do. If anybody knew, he knew. He could go a long way back to the revelation of that knowledge.

Jesus had said to him and the other disciples in Mark 7:19, "It’s not what goes in that messes men up.”

 

What goes into him just goes through his system and is eliminated; it's no big deal. And for the first time, Jesus had introduced the concept that what a person ate didn't matter. That was a big, big introduction to a Jew.

 

Then in Acts chapter 10, remember Peter had a vision? The Lord showed him all those animals and the Lord said "Rise, Peter, kill and eat. You can eat any of those animals." And Peter said "Wait a minute! I have never eaten an unclean animal. I can't do that!"

 

And God says to him, "Look Peter, don't you dare call 'unclean' what God has set aside. When God says something is clean, don't you call it uncommon, don't you call it unclean."

 

So Peter had had two very straightforward lessons on the fact that you could eat anything, and eat with anybody. That vision in chapter 10 was to specifically show him that he could eat with Gentiles.

 

That’s exactly what he did when he stayed at the house of Cornelius. 

 

So Jesus had told him two times - once in person, once through a vision - that it was fine to eat anything and it was fine to eat with Gentiles.

 

So here he is in Antioch, and everything’s fine.  He’s having bacon and pork chops and sausage and he’s  eating with Gentiles.

 

 

 

 

Then one day, some men showed up from Jerusalem.  They were either sent by James or claimed to be sent by James, and they believed that circumcision was necessary and when they got there, “withdrew and separated himself.”

 

Peter!  Shame on you!  But that's what he did.  The word 'withdrew' is the word used to describe a strategic military operation.  Philippians used the word of drawing back troops in order to get shelter, so Peter sort of draws back.  It was sneaky. 

 

You can just see Peter, excusing himself to go to the bathroom and never coming back to the table.  May be he had to take a call on his cell phone, and just never came back.

 

That is so sad to see!  But it is the same old Peter.  That's the same Peter that stood up and said "I confess the deity of Christ, Thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God," and then turns right around and repudiates Jesus when He predicts He's going to die.  He's the same Peter who is called to preach and later on goes back to fishing.  He's the same Peter who would die for Christ, but when he gets a chance to speak for Christ, he denies Him.  So it's the same Peter.  He’s still lurking around in the shadows, hiding. 

 

And it is that event that has caused Paul such anger.  To Paul’s way of thinking, Peter has attacked the gospel of grace.  He was, in effect, saying, "I'm with the circumcision party." 

 

Now I don't Peter thought of it that way, but he did. 

 

Why?  Why would Peter do that, especially after the words from the Lord and the vision and the Jerusalem council? 

 

Verse 12 tells us.

 

He was afraid.  Afraid of what?  Afraid of losing his popularity.  He was afraid that the circumcision party would go back and they would say, "Well, Peter is up there doing this and that," and he'd lose his reputation if they gave a bad report to the rest of the like-minded, legalistic people in Jerusalem.  Peter wanted to hang on to his prestige. 

 

Peter provides us with some good commentary on the Christian life.  Did you ever notice that, generally speaking, you walk with God is not a steady, even , always ascending line? 

 

For most of us, it looks like a heart monitor.  He gives us a good pattern of most Christians.

 

The Christian life is to be growth, but it has it’s ups and downs. 

 

It's when you dip down that you start learning lessons that push you up again.  Then you fail a little bit and God teaches you lessons through discipline or trial and up you go again.  It goes like that.  Peter went down, but later on, we find him going up again.

 

So here is old Peter.  And Paul reacts, and this isn't a temper-tantrum on Paul's part, he doesn't just blow his cork.  He sees a Biblical principle here.  You know what Peter had done?  He had caused a division in the body of Christ. 

 

Here was a group of Jews meeting, and a group of Gentiles, and that's just what God did not want.  He went to tremendous lengths in granting the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts and in the early history of the church to make sure it was one Body. 

 

And now here was Peter, splitting it in two.  People were going to believe that Peter supported the circumcision view of salvation by works. 

 

So Peter's deviation started with a clash and there was a cause.

 

Look at

 

- the consequence

 

The rest of the Jews who were Christians in the Antioch church all pulled out with Peter, and now all the Jews were over here having their own deal and left the Gentiles alone to have theirs.  Peter was Satan's pawn.  He'd had an immediate effect. 

 

verse 13

 

Now that was the final blow.  Even the pastor of the church at Antioch, Barnabas, Barnabas!  Their own pastor split.  The whole church split down the middle.  All the circumcision and all the ones who were along the legalistic lines and the supporters of Gentile Christians over here trying to figure out what happened, and the super-pious group over here.  Peter had fallen right into the hands of the Judaizers.  And now the beauty and blessing of the church has been destroyed.

 

 

The church was split wide open.  Here's a little group of Gentiles over here with Paul as pastor.  And here's a little group of Jews over here, and Barnabas is their pastor.  Isn’t that beautiful?  Isn’t that a wonderful testimony to God?  And yet there are testimonies to that kind of conduct all over the face of Christianity. 

 

And notice the word Paul uses to describe what caused it.  “Hypocrite”.

 

It literally means “to answer from under”.  You know what the word was used for?  It was used for an actor who spoke under a mask.  A hypocrite is someone who masks his true self.  They played the part of a hypocrite. 

 

You know why Peter was a hypocrite?  Because Peter knew.  He knew what was right.  He knew that there was one body; he knew that there was to be fellowship with Gentiles.  Why did he separate himself?  Because he was afraid that he would lose his popularity with the Jews.  Ego.  He played the hypocrite.  They all played like good, legalistic Judaizers, pretending to agree when in their hearts, they knew it was not so.  He was carried away with their hypocrisy. 

 

But the saddest of all for Paul must have been Barnabas. It was bad enough for Paul to see old Peter go, but to see Barnabas. . .

 

Paul had just gotten back from a wonderful journey with Barnabas, just spent some time with him at the Council of Jerusalem.  In fact, the first time Paul ever went to Jerusalem, who was it that put his arms around him and took him to the church?  Barnabas.  Barnabas loved Paul.  He had put his head on the block for Paul.  And Paul loved Barnabas.  They were buddies, co-ministers.  They had traveled all over, bore burdens together, suffered together, preached together, fought together, hurt together, pastored the same flock. 

 

Now, Barnabas plays the part of a hypocrite and goes with Peter and leaves Paul.  All this time, Paul has been preaching grace.  Paul shed blood over preaching the gospel of grace.  Paul trudged all over the world for the gospel of grace, and his dearest friend walks away from it. 

 

Can you imagine what that must have been like for  Paul, to see his own friend side with the Judaizers who had tried to destroy everything Paul did? 

 

I think this may have been the first little step that caused the rift between Paul and Barnabas that finally came over John Mark.  Because soon after that, when Paul was going to take his second journey and invited Barnabas to go, he and Barnabas had an argument over whether to take John Mark.  Paul finally said, "No," and their relationship was severed.  Maybe this was the precursor to it. 

 

Well, how did Paul react to this?  We’re going to look at that next time, because his response is the segue into his discussion of salvation by grace through faith. 

 

Let me close with this, just to point out a couple of things.  Don't miss this please, this is important.  I just want to wrap up with some lessons. 

 

One: even God’s greatest servants can make serious mistakes.  God's Word is infallible, God's people aren't.  It’s interesting to me how Catholicism deals with this passage of Scripture.  They believe Peter was the first pope and was infallible.  That’s why some Catholic theologians state that this Peter was a different Peter than the apostle.  They do that in order to maintain his infallibility as the first pope.  No, men are fallible. 

 

Second lesson: we learn from Peter that it isn't enough to believe the Gospel unless you're willing to obey it.  His sin was not in his creed, he believed right.  His sin was not in his doctrine, he was taught right.  His sin was in his behavior.  Whatwe do is what we really believe.   Your theology is only as significant as your life that backs it up. 

 

Third lesson: we learn that the truth is more important than keeping peace.  "Paul withstood him to the face."  Why?  Because he didn't care what the reaction was, he would fight for the truth.  You know, there are some people who just want to keep the peace at all cost. 

 

If you're maintaining peace at the expense of truth, then you have missed it.  What you've got is not peace, but compromise.  Peter forgot that the Christian is called to obedience, not compromise for any reason.  How easy it is to use situation ethics. 

 

Fourth lesson: I believe that we must openly oppose those who deny the Gospel.  Whether they deny it in their creed or in their practice, I believe it is the Christian's obligation, face to face, to confront and oppose those people. 

Whether it is the pastor in the pulpit preaching false doctrine or the Christian in the pew living false doctrine, it must be confronted and dealt with. 

 

Well, Paul picks it up from there in one of the most thrilling responses that sets off the pattern for the rest of Galatians.  We'll look at it next week. 

 

Let's pray.