GALATIANS-2:11-16 COMMENTARY by GUZIK

B. The setting of Paul’s confrontation with Peter regarding the acceptance of the Gentiles.

1. (11-13) The reason for Paul’s public rebuke of the apostle Peter.

Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

a. Peter had approved of Paul’s gospel and ministry when Paul came to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9); and God used Peter himself to welcome Gentiles into Christianity without the precondition of becoming Jews (Acts 11:1-18).

b. He withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision: Though Peter had been in agreement with welcoming Gentiles into the church without bringing them under the Law of Moses, when Peter came to Antioch (Paul’s home church), it was another story. He refused to associate with Gentile Christians once certain Jewish believers from Jerusalem came.

i. These men were Christians of Jewish background – Paul calls them certain men . . . from James and those who were of the circumcision – and Peter knew they would be “offended” at his fellowship with Gentiles who had not come under the Law of Moses. In their eyes, these uncircumcised Gentiles were not really Christians at all, so to please them and avoid a conflict, Peter treated these Gentile Christians as if they were not Christians at all.

ii. Peter had known that God did not require Gentiles to come under the Law of Moses for salvation. He learned this from the vision God gave him in Acts 10:23. He learned this from the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles who believed (apart from being circumcised!) in Acts 10:44-48. He learned this by the agreement of the other leaders of the church in Acts 11:1-18. Now, Peter turns back on all that he had known about the place of Gentiles in the church, and he treats uncircumcised Gentiles as if they are not saved at all.

iii. “He seems to have taken this action shamefacedly. As Bishop Lightfoot says, ‘the words describe forcibly the cautious withdrawal of a timid person who shrinks from observation.’” (Stott)

iv. “It is perhaps curious that nobody seems to have recalled that Jesus ate ‘with publicans and sinners’, which can scarcely mean that he conformed to strict Jewish practice.” (Morris)

v. Sadly, others will follow Peter’s lead. “The sins of teachers are the teachers of sins.” (Trapp)

c. The matter was so serious that Paul boldly withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed. Paul had a public confrontation with Peter over this issue (I said to Peter before the all, Galatians 2:14).

i. This was also serious because it involved the issue of eating together. Before the certain men came from James, Peter would eat with the Gentiles. But once they came, Peter withdrew and separated himself. This separation was probably at the church potluck dinner, which they called “the agape banquet” or the “love feast.” They would also remember the Lord’s death at this dinner, and take communion together. Therefore, Peter put these Gentile Christians away from the communion table!

ii. “It may be that the observance of holy communion was involved in this, for it seems that often in the early church it was celebrated at a meal shared by all the believers. If this was the case at Antioch, there would have been a division of believers at the table of the Lord.” (Morris)

iii. “Paul had no small matter in hand, but the chief article of the Christian religion. When this article is endangered, we must not hesitate to resist Peter, or an angel from heaven.” (Luther)

iv. “Paul not hearing this from the report of others, but being an eye-witness to it, doth not defer the reproof, lest the scandal should grow: nor doth he reprove him privately, because the offence was public, and such a plaster would not have fitted the sore.” (Poole)

d. Why did Peter do this, when he knew that God welcomed Gentiles into the church without placing them under the Law of Moses? Paul says Peter was fearing those who were of the circumcision. Peter acted against what he knew was right out of fear. “Peter perhaps felt that if the members of the embassy went back and told the Jerusalem church that he was eating with Gentiles it would compromise his position with the leading church.” (Morris)

i. It is easy to criticize Peter; but every person knows what it means to do something you know is wrong. Everyone knows what it feels like to go against what you know very well is right. Everyone knows what it feels like when social pressure pushes you towards compromise in some way.

ii. “Their withdrawal from table-fellowship with Gentile believers was not prompted by any theological principle, but by craven fear of a small pressure group . . . He still believed the gospel, but he failed to practise it.” (Stott)


iii. This is the kind of behavior that dominated Peter’s life before he was transformed by the power of God. This is like Peter telling Jesus not to go to the cross, or Peter taking his eyes of Jesus and sinking, or like Peter cutting off the ear of the servant of the High Priest when they came to arrest Jesus. We see that the flesh is still present in Peter. Salvation and the filling of the Holy Spirit has not made Peter perfect; the old Peter is still there, just seen less often!

iv. We might be surprised that Peter, who did know better, did this; but we are only surprised if we don’t believe what God says about the weakness and corruption of our flesh. Paul himself knew this struggle, as he describes it in Romans 7:18: For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.

v. “No man’s standing is so secure that he may not fall. If Peter fell, I may fall. If he rose again, I may rise again. We have the same gifts that they had, the same Christ, the same baptism and the same Gospel, the same forgiveness of sins.” (Luther)

e. We don’t know what it was about these certain men from James that made Peter afraid. Perhaps they were men of very strong personality. Perhaps they were men of great prestige and influence. Perhaps they made threats of one kind or another. Whatever it was, the desire to cater to these legalistic Jewish Christians was so strong that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. When these men from James came, even Barnabas treated the Gentile Christians as if they were not Christians at all!

i. This is amazing. Barnabas was Paul’s trusted friend and associate. Barnabas stood beside Paul when he first met the apostles (Acts 9:27). Barnabas sought out Paul and brought him to Antioch to help with the ministry there (Acts 11:25). Acts 11:24 says of Barnabas, he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. Yet, Barnabas fails at this critical test also.

ii. “The defection of Barnabas was of a far more serious nature with regard to Gentile freedom than the vacillation of Peter . . . Barnabas, the foremost champion of Gentile liberty next to Paul, had become a turncoat.” (Wuest)

iii. “It is not impossible that this incident, by producing a temporary feeling of distrust, may have prepared the way for the dissension between Paul and Barnabas which shortly afterwards led to their separation: Acts 15:39.” (Lightfoot)

f. The rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him: It was bigger than just Peter and Barnabas! Peter first made the compromise of acting as if the Gentile Christians were not Christians at all. Then Barnabas followed him. Then the rest of the Jews at the church in Antioch followed Peter and Barnabas.

i. This shows what a heavy responsibility it is to be a leader. When we go astray, others will often follow. Satan knew that if he could make Peter take the wrong path, so would many others.

g. Played the hypocrite . . . carried away with their hypocrisy: How was this hypocrisy? The word hypocrite, in the original language of the Bible, means “one who puts on a mask,” referring to an actor. In this case, Peter, Barnabas, and the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch knew that these Gentile believers were really Christians. Yet, because of the pressure from the certain men from James, they acted like they were not Christians at all.

i. But there was more to it than this. Peter withdrew and separated himself from Gentile believers, when before he would eat with the Gentiles. In fact, he used to eat with them often. iii. Stott writes about the phrase he would eat with Gentiles: “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).”

ii. But now Peter refused to eat with Gentile believers! When a Jew refused to eat with a Gentile, he did this in obedience to Jewish rituals. Peter had already learned that obedience to Jewish rituals (such as keeping kosher) was not essential for salvation, for either Jews or Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11). Peter had stopped keeping these Jewish rituals for himself, but now he is acting as if he does keep them, to accommodate the legalism of the certain men from James. Peter no longer kept a strict observance of the Law of Moses for himself, but by his actions, he implies that Gentiles believers must keep the law – when he himself does not!

2. (14a) Paul confronts Peter publicly.

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all.

a. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel: At the foundation, this wasn’t an issue of seating arrangements at the church potluck. It wasn’t about table manners and being a good host. It wasn’t even about being sensitive to another brother’s conscience. Paul saw the issue for what it was; it was about the truth of the gospel.

i. When the certain men from James, and Peter, and Barnabas, and the rest of the Jews of the church in Antioch would not eat with Gentile Christians, they declared those Gentiles unsaved unbelievers. They said loud and clear, “You can only be right with God if you put yourself under the demands of the Law of Moses. You must be circumcised. You must eat a kosher diet. You must observe the feasts and rituals. You must do nothing that would imply partnership with someone who is not under the Law of Moses. This is the only way to receive the salvation of Jesus.” That message made Paul say, I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel.

ii. Clarke on were not straightforward: “They did not walk with a straight step.”

iii. “Peter did not say so, but his example said quite plainly that the observance of the Law must be added to faith in Christ, if men are to be saved. From Peter’s example the Gentiles could not help but draw the conclusion that the Law was necessary unto salvation.” (Luther)

b. I said to Peter before them all: What a scene this must have been! There they are, at the church of Antioch potluck. The Gentile Christians have just been asked to leave, or are told to sit in their own section away from the “real” Christians. They also wouldn’t be allowed to share the same food that the “real” Christians ate. Peter – the honored guest – goes along with all this. Barnabas – the man who led many of the Gentiles to Jesus! – goes along with all this. The rest of the Jews in the church at Antioch go along with all this. But Paul won’t stand for it. Because this is a public affront to the Gentile Christians, and because it is a public denial of the truth of the gospel, Paul confronts Peter in a public way.

i. It must have been hard, knowing who Peter was. Peter was the most prominent of all the disciples of Jesus. Peter was the spokesman for the apostles, and probably the most prominent Christian in the whole world at the time.

ii. It must have been hard, knowing who Paul was. This was before any of Paul’s missionary journeys; before he was an apostle of great prominence. At this time, Paul was far more famous for who he was before he was a Christian – a terrible persecutor of the church – than he was for who he was as a Christian.

iii. It must have been hard, knowing who was in agreement with Peter. First, Paul had the strong, domineering personalities of the certain men from James. Then, Paul had Barnabas, who was probably his best friend. Finally, Paul had the rest of the Jews. Paul was in the minority on this issue – it was him and all the Gentile Christians against all the Jewish Christians!

iv. As hard as this was, why did Paul do it? Because he knew what was at stake. This wasn’t a matter of personal conduct, or just personal sin on Peter’s part. If that were the case, it is unlikely that Paul would have first used such a public approach. This was a matter about the truth of the gospel, proclaiming, “This is how a man is right before God.”

C. What Paul said when he publicly rebuked Peter over the issue of the acceptance of Gentile Christians.

1. (14b) Paul exposes Peter’s hypocrisy in appearing to live under the law.

“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?”

a. If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews: Paul first reminded Peter that he himself did not live under strict obedience to the Law of Moses. “Peter, you eat bacon and ham and lobster. You don’t keep a kosher diet. Yet now, before these visitors, these certain men . . . from James, now you act as if you keep these laws all the time.”

i. Imagine the scene! They had all been having a good time, until Paul spoils the party. He probably wasn’t shouting, but he did speak with firmness in his voice. And as he tells everyone that Peter doesn’t live under the Law of Moses, the certain men . . . from James look amazed. Their jaws drop! “What? Peter, the most prominent of all the apostles, Peter doesn’t live under the Law of Moses? Peter eats bacon and lobster? Peter eats with Gentiles?” As for Peter, his face gets red, his heart beats faster, and he just feels sick to his stomach. Everyone else just feels awkward and wishes the whole problem would go away.

ii. How was Paul? Nervous? Bold? Shaking? It’s impossible to know until we get to heaven, but Paul did not necessarily have a commanding physical presence. Others said of Paul – and it was probably at least partially true - his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible (2 Corinthians 10:10). However Paul acted, his words were memorable, because he recalls them exactly here!

b. Lightfoot on being a Jew: “Here it is very emphatic; ‘If you, born and bred a Jew, discard Jewish customs, how unreasonable to impose them on Gentiles.’”

c. Why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? Perhaps Peter and the others might say, “We’re not making them live as Jews.” But of course they were; because their message was, “Unless you live as Jews, you aren’t saved!”

2. (15-16) Paul reminds Peter that they are justified before God by the work of Jesus, not by their keeping of the law.

“We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.”

a. We who are Jews by nature . . . knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ: “Peter, we all grew up as observant Jews. Yet we know very well that we were not considered right before God – justified – by the works of the law that we did. We know that we, even though we grew up as observant Jews, are considered right before God by faith in Jesus Christ.”

i. Not justified by the works of the law: This is Paul’s first use of the great word dikaioo (justified, declared righteous) in his letter to the Galatians. “It is a legal concept; the person who is ‘justified’ is the one who gets the verdict in a court of law. Used in a religious sense it means the getting of a favorable verdict before God on judgment day.” (Morris)

b. Even we have believed in Christ Jesus: Paul knew that even a strictly observant Jew such as he was could never be considered right before God by what they did under the Law of Moses. Instead, he, and Peter, and every single Christian must have believed in Christ Jesus.

i. “‘Faith in Jesus Christ’, then, is not intellectual conviction only, but personal commitment. The expression in the middle of verse 16 is (literally) ‘we have believed into (eis) Christ Jesus.’ It is an act of committal, not just assenting to the fact that Jesus lived and died, but running to Him for refuge and calling on Him for mercy.” (Stott)

ii. “It would be hard to find a more forceful statement of the doctrine of justification than this. It is insisted upon by the two leading apostles (‘we know’), confirmed from their own experience (‘we have believed’), and endorsed by the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament (‘by works of the law shall no one be justified’). With this threefold guarantee we should accept the biblical doctrine of justification and not let our natural self-righteousness keep us from faith in Christ.” (Stott)

iii. “In order to have faith you must paint a true portrait of Christ. The scholastics caricature Christ into a judge and tormentor. But Christ is no law giver. He is the Life-giver. He is the Forgiver of sins. You must believe that Christ might have atoned for the sins of the world with one single drop of His blood. Instead, He shed His blood abundantly in order than He might give abundant satisfaction for our sins.” (Luther)

c. The emphasis is plain: That we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law. “Peter, we were not justified by being under the Law of Moses, but by faith in Jesus.” By refusing fellowship with Gentile Christians, Peter said in his actions that we are – in part – considered right before God by the works of the law. Paul couldn’t stand for this, because it wasn’t the truth.

d. For by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified: Here, Paul emphasizes the point in the strongest way possible. No flesh – not Gentile, not Jewish, not anyone – will be considered right before God by the works of the law.

i. Lightfoot on for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified: “The words are therefore to be regarded as a free citation of Psalm 143:2.” (For in Your sight no one living in righteous).

ii. “The scholastics explain the way of salvation in this manner. When a person happens to perform a good deed, God accepts it and as a reward for the good deed God pours charity into that person. They call it ‘charity infused.’ This charity is supposed to remain in the heart. They get wild when they are told that this quality of the heart cannot justify a person.” (Luther)

iii. Since this is true, it’s plain to see how foolish and wrong it was for Peter to separate from these Gentile Christians because they had not put themselves under the Law of Moses. Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, then what difference does it make if a Gentile is circumcised according to the Law of Moses? What difference does it make if a Gentile keeps a kosher table? All that matters is their faith in Christ, because that is how we are made right before God.

-- David Guzik