Food, Freedom, and the Gospel

Proverbs 29:25 NKJV

The fear of man brings a snare, But whoever trusts in the Lord shall be safe.

Social Pressures Tempt us to Compromise The Gospel

The scene changes from Jerusalem to Antioch.

Last week we saw in Galatians 2:4, 5 that there were certain professing Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who tried to compel Titus, a Christian Greek, to be circumcised. The apostle Paul refused to submit to this pressure. The reason verse 5 gives is, “that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” If Paul had yielded to the demand for Titus to be circumcised under those circumstances, he would have torpedoed the truth of the gospel. The Gentile mission would be over, Christ would have died in vain, and we would all still be under the wrath of God for our sin. The gospel is the good news that the privilege of getting right with God was purchased fully when Christ died for our sins and rose again, and that the only way to enjoy this privilege is to live by faith in the Son of God who loved us and gave himself for us. If you add other requirements which encourage people to rely on their own willing or working, you torpedo the gospel. For if justification and sanctification are not by faith, they are not by anything, and Christ has died in vain. Therefore, Paul drove his stake and took his stand: Titus will not be compelled to be circumcised; the truth of the gospel shall be preserved.

Now in Galatians 2:11–14 the “truth of the gospel” is again at stake. Again Gentiles are about to be compelled to live like Jews. In Jerusalem the issue was circumcision. In Antioch the issue is Jewish dietary laws. Two terms make the connection between the Titus affair and the Antioch affair explicit.

First, the term “compel.” In verse 3 Paul says, “But even Titus … was not compelled to be circumcised.” And in the last part of verse 14 he says to Peter, in Antioch, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?”

The other term is “the truth of the gospel.” In verse 5 Paul says, “to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” And in verse 14 he says, “When I saw they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel …” So in verses 11–14 Paul teaches us that we can contradict the gospel in our life not only by requiring circumcision, but also by other kinds of ritual demands as well.

But alongside Paul’s concern to demonstrate the purity of the gospel is his concern to continue his defense as an apostle. Remember that the false teachers in Galatia had opposed Paul’s gospel by discrediting his independent authority as an apostle. So Paul made a case in chapter 1 that his apostleship and his gospel were not from men but had come to him by revelation (1:1, 12). He is not a second hander: he is not dependent on the Jerusalem apostles. Then in 2:1–10 he showed that in spite of this independence his apostleship and his gospel were warmly approved by the Jerusalem apostles, including Peter (or Cephas). So there is a unified apostolic gospel, and the church does not totter on a fractured foundation.

Now Paul takes one more opportunity to prove his independence from the Jerusalem apostles. If anyone in Galatia should get the notion that after the Council in Jerusalem Paul functioned only at the endorsement and guidance of Peter, James, and John, then our text should dispel that notion immediately. Not only is Paul not guided by Peter, he becomes Peter’s guide: “Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed.” So even after the Council, Paul asserts his independence as forcefully as ever. He was intensely aware of being Christ’s ambassador and no one else’s.

When Paul visited Jerusalem, Peter (together with James and John) gave him the right hand of fellowship (verses 1–10). When Peter visited Antioch, Paul opposed him to the face (verses 11–16).

Now both Paul and Peter were Christian men, men of God, who knew what it is to be forgiven through Christ and to have received the Holy Spirit. Further, they were both apostles of Jesus Christ, specially called, commissioned and invested with authority by Him. They were both honoured in the churches for their leadership. They had both been mightily used by God. In fact, the book of Acts is virtually divided in half by them, the first part telling the story of Peter and the second part the story of Paul.

Yet here is the apostle Paul opposing the apostle Peter to his face, contradicting him, rebuking him, condemning him, because he had withdrawn and separated himself from Gentile Christian believers, and would no longer eat with them. It was not that Peter denied the gospel in his teaching, for Paul has been at pains to show that he and the Jerusalem apostles were at one in their understanding of the gospel (verses 1–10), and he repeats this fact here (verses 14–16). Peter’s offence against the gospel was in his conduct. In J. B. Phillips’ words, his ‘behaviour was a contradiction of the truth of the gospel’.

We must investigate this situation, in which these two leading apostles were at loggerheads. In particular, it is important to note what each apostle did, why he did it and with what result. We shall begin with Peter.

Beware of compromising the message of Christ due to social pressure.

Peter’s Conduct - vs. 11-13

What he did

When Peter first arrived in Antioch, he ate with Gentile Christians. Indeed, the imperfect tense of the verb shows that this had been his regular practice. ‘He … was in the habit of eating his meals with the gentiles’ (JBP). His old Jewish scruples had been overcome. He did not consider himself in any way defiled or contaminated by contact with uncircumcised Gentile Christians, as once he would have done. Instead, he welcomed them to eat with him, and he ate with them. Peter, who was a Jewish Christian, enjoyed table-fellowship with the Antiochene believers, who were Gentile Christians. This probably means that they had ordinary meals together, although doubtless they partook together of the Lord’s Supper as well.

But then something happened. The circumcision party came to Antioch from James (v. 12). All we can do is speculate about how they were connected with James or why they came or what they said. But one thing is made explicit in verse 12: Peter feared this group (v. 12). Why? Perhaps they were capable of violence. Or perhaps Peter fears he may not be able to give a good enough rationale for his freedom and will look foolish. Or perhaps he fears falling into disfavor among the conservatives in Jerusalem and losing his prestigious standing as the leader. We are not told why he feared. But he did. And in a moment of weakness he cut off the fellowship with his Gentile brothers and sisters. And when he did it as the leader, so did Barnabas and all the other Jews. Put yourself in the place of a Christian Gentile in Antioch and imagine what that would have meant!

Why he did it

Why did Peter create this disastrous breach in the fellowship of the church in Antioch? We have already seen the immediate cause, namely that ‘certain men came from James’ (verse 12). But why did he give in to them? Are we to suppose that they convinced him that he had been doing wrong to eat with Gentile Christians? This cannot be so.

Let me remind you that only a short while previously, as is recorded in Acts 10 and 11, Peter had been granted a direct, special revelation from God on this very subject. He had been on the rooftop of a house in Joppa one afternoon when he fell into a trance. He saw in his vision a sheet let down from heaven by its four corners, containing an assortment of unclean creatures (birds, beasts and reptiles). He then heard a voice saying to him: ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ When he objected, the voice went on: ‘What God has cleansed, you must not call common.’ The vision was repeated three times for emphasis. From it Peter concluded that he must accompany the Gentile messengers who had come from the centurion Cornelius and enter his house, which action was unlawful for him as a Jew. In the sermon that he preached to Cornelius’ household he said: ‘Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality.’ When the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles who believed, Peter agreed that they must receive Christian baptism and be welcomed into the Christian church.

Are we to suppose that Peter had now forgotten the vision at Joppa and the conversion of the household of Cornelius? Or that he now went back on the revelation that God had given him then? Surely not. There is no suggestion in Galatians 2 that Peter had changed his mind. Why then did he withdraw from fellowship with Gentile believers in Antioch? Paul tells us. He ‘separated himself, fearing the circumcision party’ (verse 12). ‘And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity’ (verse 13). The Greek word for ‘insincerity’ is ‘hypocrisy’, which means ‘play-acting’. This is what they were doing. They ‘played false’ (NEB).

Fear & Hypocrisy

Paul’s charge is serious, but plain. It is that Peter and the others acted in insincerity, and not from personal conviction. Their withdrawal from table-fellowship with Gentile believers was not prompted by any theological principle, but by craven fear of a small pressure group. In fact, Peter did in Antioch precisely what Paul had refused to do in Jerusalem, namely yield to pressure. The same Peter who had denied his Lord for fear of a maidservant now denied Him again for fear of the circumcision party. He still believed the gospel, but he failed to practise it. His conduct ‘did not square’ with it (NEB). He virtually contradicted it by his action, because he lacked the courage of his convictions.

The Fear of Man Is Out of Step with the Gospel

The gospel does not beget fear, it begets confidence and hope and boldness. Paul says in 2 Timothy 1:7, "God did not give us a spirit of fear but of power and love and self-control." If you come this morning tense and depressed with fear or with a vague feeling of anxiety that something is going to go wrong, your primary need is to see the gospel again. You need to stop and ponder what it implies about God's intentions toward you that he gave his Son to die for you. The gospel means that God Almighty is for you and not against you, if you trust him.

What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn? Is it Christ Jesus who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us? (Romans 8:31–34)

A life that sees and believes this gospel says, "The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid; what can man do to me?" (Hebrews 13:6). We have our temporary lapses of faith, like Peter here. But God is gracious to his erring children. He sent Paul to Peter to bring him back in step with the gospel, and he sent me to you this morning to remind you that since our great gospel is true, you don't have to fear any man if you believe it.

Hypocrisy Is Out of Step with the Gospel

Verse 13 Peter and Barnabas and the others were being two-faced when they withdrew from eating with the Gentile Christians. They were saying one thing with their actions and believing another in their heart. They sought to avoid censure from the circumcision party at the expense of their principles. They feared what man might do, and so they put up a front. All hypocrisy is rooted in fear or insecurity (cf. Luke 12:1–4).

That is why it is so out of step with the gospel. Insecurity is inconsistent with the gospel. When you feel insecure or frightened and are tempted to put up a front and avoid taking a stand for what you believe is right, the battle you are fighting is a battle to believe the gospel. The gospel tells us that the death of Christ assures us of God's love, and so it gives deep root and stability and security to our lives. But more than that, the sheer beauty and power of Christ's resolve to suffer for me instead of putting up a front to save his skin shames me in my fear of man and my inclination to play the hypocrite in order to avoid suffering. Center your life on Jesus and his gospel and the root of hypocrisy will be severed.

What happened as a result

We have already noticed that ‘the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity’ (verse 13). ‘Their dissimulation’, comments Lightfoot, ‘was as a flood which swept everything away with it.’ Even Barnabas, Paul’s trusted friend and missionary colleague, who had stood firm with him in Jerusalem (verses 1, 9), now gave way in Antioch. This is important.

If Paul had not taken his stand against Peter that day, there would have been a permanent rift between Gentile and Jewish Christendom, ‘one Lord, but two Lord’s tables’. Paul’s outstanding courage on that occasion in resisting Peter preserved both the truth of the gospel and the international brotherhood of the church.

Truth issues are ultimately people issues.

Now we leave Peter and turn to Paul.

Paul’s Rebuke - vs. 14-16

What he did - Open Rebuke

Verse 11: Paul ‘withstood’ (AV) or ‘opposed’ (RSV) Peter ‘to his face’. The reason for Paul’s drastic action was that Peter ‘stood condemned’. That is to say, ‘he was clearly in the wrong’ (NEB). Not only so, but Paul rebuked Peter ‘before them all’ (verse 14), openly and publicly.

Paul did not hesitate out of deference for who Peter was. He made no attempt to hush the dispute up or arrange (as we might) for a private discussion from which the public or the press were excluded.

The consultation in Jerusalem had been private (verse 2), but the showdown in Antioch must be public.

Peter’s withdrawal from the Gentile believers had caused a public scandal; he had to be opposed in public too. So Paul’s opposition to Peter was both ‘to his face’ (verse 11) and ‘before them all’ (verse 14). It was just the kind of open head-on collision which the church would seek at any price to avoid today.

Legalism Is Out of Step with the Gospel

Paul says to Peter in verse 14, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" If Peter had said, "What compelling? I haven't said they have to live like Jews," Paul would, I think, have said, "Your actions speak louder than your words. When you, as an apostle, cut off table fellowship with Gentile brothers and sisters because they don't keep dietary laws, and you take Barnabas and all the Jews with you, the Gentile believers cannot escape the impression that they are not fully Christians unless they become Jews. That, Peter, is compulsion." And that is legalism—requiring that a person do some works of law to be accepted by God and by the church. And that is out of sync with the gospel. Notice 2:21, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose."

Why he did it

How is it that Paul dared to contradict a fellow-apostle of Jesus Christ, and to do it publicly? Was it because could not control his temper or his tongue? Did he regard Peter as a dangerous rival, so that he leapt at the opportunity to down him? No. None of these base passions motivated Paul.

Why then did he do it? The answer is simple. Paul acted as he did out of a deep concern for the gospel.

Martin Luther grasps this admirably: ‘he hath here no trifling matter in hand, but the chiefest article of all Christian doctrine.… For what is Peter? What is Paul? What is an angel from heaven? What are all other creatures to the article of justification? Which if we know, then are we in the clear light; but if we be ignorant thereof, then are we in most miserable darkness.’

What was this theological principle that was at stake?

Twice in this chapter the apostle calls it ‘the truth of the gospel’. This was the issue in Jerusalem (verse 5), and this was the issue again in Antioch (verse 14). Paul ‘saw’ this. Notice the spiritual perception into the fundamental issue which he claims—that Peter and the others were not ‘walking straight’ (literally, verse 14) according to the truth of the gospel. ‘The truth of the gospel’ seems to be likened to a straight and narrow path. Instead of sticking to it, Peter was deviating from it.

What, then, is the truth of the gospel?

Every reader of the Epistle to the Galatians should know the answer to this question. It is the good news that we sinners, guilty and under the judgment of God, may be pardoned and accepted by His sheer grace, His free and unmerited favour, on the ground of His Son’s death and not for any works or merits of our own. More briefly, the truth of the gospel is the doctrine of justification (which means acceptance before God) by grace alone through faith alone, which he goes on to expound inverses 15–17.

Any deviation from this gospel Paul simply will not tolerate. At the beginning of the Epistle he pronounced a fearful anathema on those who distort it (1:8, 9). In Jerusalem he refused to submit to the Judaizers even for a moment, ‘that the truth of the gospel might be preserved’ (2:5). And now in Antioch, out of the same vehement loyalty to the gospel, he withstands Peter to the face because his behaviour has contradicted it. Paul is determined to defend and uphold the gospel at all costs, even at the expense of publicly humiliating a brother apostle.

But someone may wonder how Peter’s withdrawal contradicted the truth of the gospel. Consider Paul’s reasoning carefully. Verses 15, 16: We ourselves (that is, Peter and Paul) … know that a man (any man, whether Jew or Gentile) is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. These words are part of what Paul said to Peter in Antioch.

He is reminding him of the gospel which they both knew and which they held in common. On this matter there was no difference of opinion between them. They were agreed that God accepts the sinner through faith in Christ and in the work He finished on the cross. This is the way of salvation for all sinners, Jews and Gentiles alike. There is no distinction between them in the fact of their sin; and there is therefore no distinction between them in the means of their salvation.

Now, if God justifies Jews and Gentiles on the same terms, through simple faith in Christ crucified, and puts no difference between them, who are we to withhold our fellowship from Gentile believers unless they are circumcised?

If God does not require this work of the law called circumcision before He accepts them, how dare we impose a condition upon them which He does not impose?

If God has accepted them, how can we reject them? If He receives them to His fellowship, shall we deny them ours? He has reconciled them to Himself; how can we withdraw from those whom God has reconciled? The principle is well-stated in...

Romans 15:19 NKJV

in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

Besides, Peter himself had been justified by faith in Jesus. He not only ‘knew’ the doctrine of justification by faith, but had himself acted on it and ‘believed’ in Jesus in order to be justified (verse 16). And Peter no longer observed Jewish food regulations. If you, Paul says to him, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? (verse 14).

What happened as a result

We are not told explicitly in this passage the result of Paul’s action, but the perspective of later history tells us. For this incident in Antioch precipitated the future Council in Jerusalem, described in Acts 15. It is possible that Paul was actually on his way up to Jerusalem for the Council while he was writing this Epistle. We know from Acts 15:1, 2 that the dissensions provoked by the Judaizers in Antioch were the immediate cause of the Council. Paul, Barnabas and certain others were appointed by the church to go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this very question. We also know the decision which the Jerusalem Council reached, namely that circumcision was not to be required of Gentile believers. And so, partly as a result of the stand Paul took at Antioch against Peter that day, a great triumph for the gospel was won.

The Message of Galatians a. We Must Walk Straight according to the Gospel

It is not enough that we believe the gospel (Peter did this, verse 16), nor even that we strive to preserve it, as Paul and the Jerusalem apostles did, and the Judaizers did not. We must go further still. We must apply it; it is this that Peter failed to do. He knew perfectly well that faith in Jesus was the only condition on which God will have fellowship with sinners; but be added circumcision as an extra condition on which he was prepared to have fellowship with them, thus contradicting the gospel.

It’s not wrong to be with your people, your group, your friends at church, but you need to be careful lest even subconsciously you send out an exclusionary message that says, “Other people aren’t welcome here.” Folks who are new to the church often pick up those signals even when the rest of us don’t think we’re sending them out.

Truths for Today

There are no infallible leaders

Friendships must not be put above truth on important issues

Public sin must be rebuked publicly

We must defend the freeness of the gospel since it is always under attack by the enemy.

Pray for pastors

Believe the great gospel of Christ and do not fear what men can do to you.

Believe the great gospel of Christ and do not play the hypocrite. Hold to your biblical principles and be willing to suffer the consequences. There is great security and comfort in the gospel.

Believe the great gospel of Christ and do not nullify the grace of God.