Gospel Living

There is a radical shift in tone in verse 11.  “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” (Galatians 2:11, NIV).  Previously Peter, James and John had given their agreement with the Gospel going to the Gentiles.  This implies, by the way, that it was the Gospel plus nothing -- no circumcision. Now Paul testifies to a conflict with Peter.

Prior to this tête-à-tête with Peter, he had been participating when both Jews and Gentiles were eating together.  Then someone(s) showed up and Peter acquiesced and separated himself for the Gentiles. Peter's actions were contrary to the Gospel making the Gentiles feel marginalized "unless they followed Jewish ceremonial laws (such as dietary laws [vv. 12–14], circumcision [v. 3; 5:2–12; 6:12–15], and holidays and festivals [4:10]). [1]

This hypocritical action of Peter drew in other Jews  “. . . so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.” (Galatians 2:13, NIV).  Even Barnabas the encourager.  Even Barnabas who befriended Paul the converted murderer, succumbed to this hypocrisy. "Here then ye see Peter’s offence, as Paul plainly setteth it forth. Paul accuseth him not of malice or ignorance, but of dissimulation and infirmity, in that he abstained from meats forbidden in the law, fearing lest the Jews which came from James should be offended thereby, and had more respect to the Jews than to the Gentiles. Hereby he gave occasion, as much as in him was, to overthrow Christian liberty and the truth of the Gospel." [2]

Luther notes that one might abstain or to not abstain from eating meats for the sake of a brother, but to abstain or not abstain because one thought the act to merit greater righteousness and credit is wrong.  "And this is a wonderful matter, that God preserved the Church, being yet but young, and the Gospel itself, by one only person. Paul alone standeth to the truth; for he had lost Barnabas his companion, and Peter was against him. So sometimes one man is able to do more in a council than the whole council besides." [2]

Paul rightly discerned that Peter's actions were not in concert with the Gospel and thereby stood his ground.  Peter's hypocrisy is clear: he was a Jew living with a free conscience among Gentiles; why would he not allow the Gentiles to live freely among the Jews?  Luther brilliantly points out that Peter's profession of faith was Gospel, but he was living by Law. "Here I say again, that to live as the Jew, is not evil of itself; for it is a thing indifferent, either to eat swine’s flesh, or any other meats. But so to play the Jew, that for conscience sake thou abstainest from certain meats, this is to deny Christ, and to overthrow the Gospel." [2]

Father I wonder if in my life I draw a demarcation line between myself and other Christian brothers and sisters on matters that are not Gospel matters?  Do I by my estrangement from others pull away on issues of Law instead of Gospel? When I separate myself on matters of Law I must surely not only be hypocritical but I surely am living contra-Gospel.   May I live in such a way that I would enjoy the open and bold rebuke of a brother who sees me act is such reprehensible ways.  Lord grant me the grace this day to live worthy of the Gospel, for the sake of the One who saved me, fully by grace through faith -- and all of His abundant mercy.

 

__________________________________________

1. Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (2247). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

2. Luther, M. (1997). Commentary on Galatians (Ga 2:12). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.