Galatians 2:11-14

INTRODUCTION:

This week we cover one of the most tense portions in the NT.

The question is this, “How do we handle conflict?”

All of us in here have some type of conflict in our lives. Even the children in the nursery have conflict whether it’s to listen to the Bible story or even sharing a toy. We experience conflict all around us. In our families, our marriages, in our workplace, while driving on the road, etc.

However, even though we all have conflict, we don’t all react and deal with conflict the same ways.

We live in a world today where people, when faced with conflict will either fight well, fight poorly, avoid or flee. Some people even seemingly believe that it we don’t talk about it, then it’s as if it doesn’t exist.

Everyone knows that a conversation or even a possible confrontation is needed but many people don’t want to do anything and it only then festers into an unhealthy atmosphere and those involved avoid the person or act like they have to walk around on egg shells.

I have learned so much that when there is conflict, usually someone’s feelings and emotions gets hurt. I am sure that David’s feelings were hurt when he was confronted by Nathan.

If someone may get their feelings hurt, then why do we deal with confrontation at all? One reason is that the longer you “don’t deal” with it, the more it eats you up inside more and more causing you emotional and even physical pain. Those in the medical field have even attributed stress to things like ulcers.

Sometimes, the result is that you “gain a brother” but also there is the risk of “severing the relationship.”

However, we need to examine what it is that we feel we must confront about and our motives. Some confront out of our own wounds, anger and hurt to make others feel horrible so we can feel better (a form of bullying). Some may do it with an inadequate or incomplete picture of the situation or others have gotten involved and it gets out of hand.

We had a situation like that overseas and it hindered our strongest friendship we had.

This morning we are going to see a confrontation between the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter. We will see why this confrontation was needed and why it was needed to be made publicly.

This morning I hope that you see that “biblical confrontation in order to help promote biblical unity and gospel integrity to fulfill the gospel ministry as representatives of Jesus to the world as the church.”

The transition is from protect the poor to a problem arises then the need to protect the genuineness of the gospel and that is the same today. I am honestly getting frustrated with how our culture is turning away from biblical values and living including our church culture AND we need to stand firm in the truth and protect the genuineness of the gospel still.

EXEGESIS:

Galatians 2:11 “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned.”

We don’t know when Paul visited because it is not recorded in Galatians nor in the book of Acts, possibly took place after Paul and Barnabas completed their first missionary journey in A.D. 48. . At any rate peter’s conduct in Antioch produced a tense face-to-face confrontation between 2 Christians leaders. Paul felt compelled to rebuke and condemn Peter for his actions, thus defending the gospel and demonstrating again his own independence and equality as an apostle.

Antioch. Ac 11:19 “Now those who had been scattered as a result of the persecution that started because of Stephen made their way as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews.” The location of the first Gentile church. More than 300 miles (480 kilometers) north of Jerusalem, Antioch was the center of the Gentile mission (Ac 11:20), including Paul’s mission (Ac 13:1–3; 14:26; 15:35; 18:22–23).

stood condemned. Peter was guilty of sin by aligning himself with men he knew to be in error and because of the harm and confusion he caused his Gentile brethren.

Galatians 2:12-13 “For he regularly ate with the Gentiles before certain men came from James. However, when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, because he feared those from the circumcision party. Then the rest of the Jews joined his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.”

The situation behind this passage is likely that the men who came from James (from the Jerusalem church) encouraged Jewish Christians to eat separately and follow kosher dietary laws.Peter decided to go along with this, perhaps not realizing that his example would make the Gentile Christians feel like second-class Christians.

James, we will remember is the Lord’s brother, who became the leader of the Jerusalem church after Peter took on a wider ministry base (Acts 9:32)

Eating with the Gentiles would mean not eating according to Jewish dietary restrictions. The circumcision party advocated following the ceremonies of the Mosaic covenant law at least regarding circumcision, food, and special days (see note on vv. 11–12).Not only was Peter guilty of hypocrisy; as an influential leader, he also led astray the rest of the Jewish Christians, even Barnabas. These emissaries (delegates/diplomat) came from James and belonged to the circumcision party, but it is doubtful that they had James’ endorsement. Nonetheless Peter was influenced by their presence and slowly but surely began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles.

Peter’s fear-based hypocrisy was even more flagrant because, besides eating with the Gentiles in the church at Syrian Antioch, he had been previously instructed by a vision to fellowship with Cornelius, the Gentile (Ac 10).

draw back. The Gr. term refers to strategic military withdrawal. The verb’s form may imply that Peter’s withdrawal was gradual and deceptive. To eat with the Judaizers and decline invitations to eat with the Gentiles, which he had done previously, meant that Peter was affirming the very dietary restrictions he knew God had abolished (Ac 10:15) and thus striking a blow at the gospel of grace.

afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The true motivation behind Peter’s defection. He was afraid of losing popularity with the legalistic, Judaizing segment of people in the church, even though they were self-righteous hypocrites promoting a heretical doctrine.

hypocrisy. The Gr. word for “hypocrite” refers to an actor who wore a mask to depict a mood or certain character. In the spiritual sense, it refers to someone who masks his true character by pretending to be something he is not (cf. Mt 6:1–6). They were committed to the gospel of grace, but pretended to accept Jewish legalism.

Labeling Peter with the word hypocrisy associates him with the Pharisees. According to Paul, Peter not only played the Pharisee; he actually behaved like the Pharisee in this matter. Hypokrisis, however, may have more serious overtones here since the LXX uses it to refer to Israel’s enemies as “ungodly people.”

Barnabas is mentioned by name because the Galatians know him personally (Acts 13-14). But instead of protecting Barnabas’s reputation, Paul chooses to reveal the details so that the readers can appreciate his own integrity. When Paul says he does not please people for the sake of the gospel, he means it.

By such actions Peter in effect was teaching that there were two bodies of Christ, Jewish and Gentile. And that was heresy. But why did Peter create this breach? Not because of any change in theology, but simply out of fear. Once, after preaching to Gentile Cornelius, Peter courageously defended himself before the Jerusalem leaders (cf. Acts 11:18); but this time he capitulated to some Jewish friends.

Although Peter was a leader of the church, he was acting like a hypocrite and not being true to the gospel (2:14). He knew better, yet he was driven by fear of what James and the others would think. Proverbs 29:25 says, “Fearing people is a dangerous trap.” Paul knew that he had to confront Peter before his actions damaged the church, so he publicly opposed Peter. Note, however, that Paul did not go to the other leaders, nor did he write letters to the churches telling them not to follow Peter’s example. Instead, he opposed Peter face-to-face. Sometimes sincere Christians—even Christian leaders—make mistakes and other sincere Christians are needed to get them back on track. If you are convinced that people are harming themselves or the church, try the direct approach. Backstabbing has no place in the body of Christ.

Galatians 2:14 “But when I saw that they were deviating from the truth of the gospel, I told Cephas in front of everyone, “If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews?”

The gospel had been undermined by Peter’s behavior. Gentiles watching Peter (Cephas) would have thought, “In order to fellowship with Jewish Christians, I guess we need to adopt Jewish practices like the food laws and circumcision.” Such thinking would have convinced them that the gospel hadn’t really worked and that racial unity and right standing before God would only result from keeping the law. Legalism and hypocrisy go hand in hand, disrupting the gospel’s power to produce racial harmony.

before them all. Because Peter’s sin was a public sin that was setting a bad example for the church, Paul confronted him publicly (compare the different procedure that Jesus commands regarding a private sin against an individual person, which hopefully can be corrected privately;

Matt. 18:15–20 ““If your brother sins against you, go tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he won’t listen, take one or two others with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. If he doesn’t pay attention to them, tell the church. If he doesn’t pay attention even to the church, let him be like a Gentile and a tax collector to you. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there among them.””

Jewish custom demanded attempts to resolve matters privately before a public rebuke (cf. 6:1; Mt 18:15), except in extraordinary circumstances—such as this one.

James 5:19–20 “My brothers and sisters, if any among you strays from the truth, and someone turns him back, let that person know that whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.”

Peter’s hypocritical example implied that Gentiles had to behave like Jews in order to receive God’s grace. Thus, Peter was not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel of God’s grace. It had already been decided (vv. 1–5) that it was not proper to compel Gentiles to live as Jews because salvation was through faith alone.

Peter, being a Jew by nationality, has been able to liberate himself from the restrictive Jewish dietary regulations (Lev. 11). He has learned his freedom as a Christian based on the teaching of Jesus in Mark 7:1-21 and lived like a Gentile, enjoying table fellowship with the Gentile Christians.

What Peter had initiated created a public scandal and therefore deserved a public rebuke.

APPLICATION:

This week, as I mentioned in the business meeting, we

To bring forth this fruit requires not just conversion by the gospel, but the ongoing preaching to believers of how the gospel works.

We live in a pluralistic society with many expressions of Christian faith. When we see heresy everywhere, Christians can just as easily become passive compromisers as they can become angry, belligerent defenders of the faith. Satan’s purposes are as well served by Christians on either extreme—those who are quick to argue and alienate others and those who passively deny we are experiencing any spiritual warfare. During his visit to Jerusalem, Paul realized that the very heart of the gospel was under attack. He understood what was at stake, so he defended it fiercely. We must do the same because the truth of the gospel remains under attack today. Believers are called to active duty in defending the truth, but we must also be wise and loving when we take a stand.

NEXT SECTION:

Galatians and Romans have proved to be the most influential and perhaps the most controversial letters.

Luther misunderstood Galatians; so, at least, it can be argued. Galatians is not about “justification by faith,” as Luther and his followers through the centuries have believed. It is about sanctification by faith. It is not about how one gets sins forgiven. It is about how one is to live when that initial forgiveness has been received.