PETER, PAUL AND THE CONFLICT
AT THE CHURCH POTLUCK
KEY VERSE – It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. (Gal. 5:1) SECONDARY THEME VERSES: “A man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal. 2:16); “If righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing” (Gal. 2:21).
THEME: Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone releases us from the yoke of the law, freeing us to live a life of love through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Legal (Imputed) Righteousness: We are justified by faith in Christ (Gal. 2:16). Imparted Righteousness: Immediate Moral Change at conversion (Gal. 6:15); Gradual Moral Change through the fruit-growing work of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22) which requires our cooperation (Gal 5:16-17, 25, 6:8). We cooperate by using CCRC (Concentration, Choice, Reflection, Confession/Thanksgiving. Foundational verse, “By one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” (Heb. 10:14)
Good Teachers: (1) Constantly re-evaluate what they are doing; (2) Set large goals; (3) Ask – Does everything I do contribute to learning?; (4) Prepare well; (5) Check for understanding; (6) Like teaching; (7) Get results from their teaching; (8) Have perseverance. Don’t give up.
TEACHING GOAL: The show how hypocritical leadership, and a need to please everyone, can subvert truth and especially the truth of the Gospel.
REVIEW
Paul’s thesis: My apostleship, like the twelve, is by divine appointment; the Gospel I preach was received by divine revelation. (Galatians 1:11-12)
From 1:13-4:31 Paul defends his position as an apostle and the divine authenticity of the Gospel he preaches. Paul shows his independence from: (1) Human Teaching (1:13-17); (2) Judean churches (1:18-24); (3) Jerusalem “pillars” (2:1-10); (4) Apostle Peter (2:11-21).
TEXT FOR THE DAY:
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Galatians 2:11-14)
PETER, PAUL AND THE CONFLICT AT THE ANTIOCH CHURCH POTLUCK
1. Peter’s Understanding
2. Peter’s Practice
3. Peter’s Fault
4. Peter’s Fear
5. Peter’s Hypocrisy
6. Peter’s Influence
7. Peter’s Shame
PETER, PAUL AND THE CONFLICT AT THE CHURCH POTLUCK (Part 3)
INTRODUCTION:
The problem dealt with in Galatians 2:1-10 was circumcision. The problem in this text is Jewish food laws.
This visit of Peter to Antioch doesn’t tell us what the Gospel is but how it operates.
Pastor Ryken writes, “There he [Peter] was, sitting down to have table fellowship with unwashed, uncircumcised heathens. He might as well have gone the whole hog and host a pig roast for the singles fellowship!” (Ryken, 56)
Why is Paul relating this incident in Antioch in this letter to the Galatian Christians who are far removed from Antioch? It appears the false teachers in Galatia kept saying that they were bringing the “teaching” of the Jerusalem apostles. Paul is showing himself to be an equal with the Apostle Peter and thus also an authority on the content of the Gospel.
REVIEW:
Peter understood that God does not show favoritism and that he should not call anyone impure or unclean (Acts 10:28, 34). Because of that from the time Peter arrived in Antioch he ate with the Gentiles and in that sense lived like a Gentile (Gal. 1:12, 14). By eating with the Gentile Christians he showed that he accepted them (Rev. 3:20) and in fact showed that he was “one” with them (I Cor. 10:17)
Peter was clearly in the wrong (Gal. 2:11) when he began to separate himself from eating with the Gentiles. His separation was really a way of forcing Gentiles to follow Jewish customs (Gal. 2:14). By so doing he not acting in line with the truth of the Gospel (Gal. 2:14)
Peter’s besetting character strength and weakness was his impetuousness and impulsiveness. As a young man this helped him at times to do what the other apostles would not do, e.g. walk on water. But it also meant that often he failed to reflect and thus a tendency to make bad decision, e.g. the idea of building three tabernacles on the Mt. of Transfiguration, the rebuke of Jesus concerning the cross.
We are not sure why Peter feared those of the circumcision but fear was the key factor in his decision. It seems Peter failed to reflect on the implications for the church and the Gospel if he broke off table fellowship with the Gentiles. Why didn’t he discuss this matter with Paul?
Even though Peter had been with Jesus three years, experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, seen many miracles performed in his ministry, preached to thousands with many conversions . . . yet the character trait of impulsiveness and fear that bedeviled him as a young man continue to trouble him in middle age.
We must continually be aware that the character we were born with will stay with us until we died. The weaknesses will not be eradicated in spite of a life of rich experiences with God.
V. PETER’S HYPOCRISY
The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (Gal. 2:13)
“The Greek term behind ‘hypocrisy’ originally referred to an actor wearing a mask to indicate a particular mood or type of character. A hypocrite is someone who, like a Greek actor, masks his true self.”(MacArthur, 52)
‘Hypocrisy’ is intentional and unintentional contradictions of belief and practice, an insincere or fake person.
“Paul saw that Peter, Barnabas and the others were putting on a charade (acting out something they didn’t believe in). They did not really believe that Gentiles were second-class Christians, but they were acting as if they did. Their actions were not consistent with their theology. (Ryken, 58)
Peter was both ‘hypocritical’ and ‘heretical.’ He knew perfectly well that faith in Christ was the only way a person could be justified and yet he was adding Jewish ceremonial law. And in adding Jewish ceremonial law, he was also heretical … he was not in line with the Gospel.
VI. PETER’S INFLUENCE
The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (Gal. 2:13)
“Even Barnabas” is really a strong statement. How could Barnabas, Paul’s loyal co-worker, the man who welcomed Paul into fellowship, that welcomed Gentiles into the fellowship of the Jewish church. Of all people, how could Barnabas be swept away? Barnabas stood with him in Jerusalem when they stood against the circumcision of Titus. And now, “even Barnabas . . . “
The phrase ‘was led astray’ might be better translated ‘was carried away.’ It is like a strong current carrying away something. This strong current brought by the Judaizers from Jerusalem came into the Antioch church and carried away Peter, the Jews and even Barnabas.
After Peter and Paul, the book of Acts says more about Barnabas than anyone else.
QUESTION: What were the chief character qualities of Barnabas? Avoid using “Christian” terminology. Try to psychoanalyze Barnabas like a psychologist would.
Acts 4:36-37 – Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 9:26-27 – When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus.
Acts 11:19-23 – Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews. Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord. News of this reached the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he arrived and saw what the grace of God had done, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts.
Acts 11:24 – He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord.
Acts 11:25-26 – Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
Acts 11:27-30 – During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) The disciples, as each one was able, decided to provide help for the brothers and sisters living in Judea. This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.
Acts 12:25 – When Barnabas and Saul had finished their mission, they returned from Jerusalem, taking with them John, also called Mark.
Acts 13:1-3 – Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.
Acts 13:4-14:28 – Barnabas witnessed the miracle in Cyprus where Elymas was blinded, experience the threat of stoning in Iconium, saw the healing of the lame man in Lystra, was there at the stoning of Paul in Lystra, appointed of elders, reported to the church in Antioch.
Acts 15:1-4 – Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. . . . . When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
Acts 15:5-19 – Attended conference in Jerusalem. Please note vs. 12 – The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.
Acts 15:30-31. 35 – So the men [Paul and Barnabas] were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. . . . Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
Acts 15:36-41 – Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
ILLUSTRATION: Don Jennings training on “Personality Styles” the Controller, Analyst, Promoter and Supporter. I am a “Controller.” Good characteristics = Makes decisions easily and quickly based on facts and logic, bottom-line, action, result orientated. Negatively can be abrasive, impatient, dominating dictator.
The principle – every personality style has it strong and weak points.
ILLUSTRATION: Peter would be a “Promoter”: Life of the party, enthusiastic, filled with ideas and dreams, makes decision quickly based on ‘gut reaction’ – ‘if it feels good do it. Negative: Tends to act impulsively before checking things out.
QUESTION: What are the negative tendencies a person like Barnabas would have?
On the grid Don Jennings used, Barnabas would be a “Supporter.” He is interested in personal relationships with people. He is a nice person, works hard at being cooperative and supportive. He was a good mediator when a personal touch as required. Negatively: May make bad decisions in order not to hurt someone’s feelings.
Barnabas may have folded also because he was much closer to the Jerusalem leadership. Remember he was a member of the church in Jerusalem almost from the beginning.
Peter influenced all of the Jewish Christians and “even Barnabas.” This certainly shows us how careful we must be with our actions. People are followers and will follow us. Is Paul referring to such actions when he quotes a common proverb in Gal. 5:9, “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.”?
Peter’s fear of man caused him to be a snare for others.
Shall I, to soothe the unholy throng, / Soften Thy truths, and smooth my tongue, / To gain earth’s gilded toys, or flee // The cross, endured, my God by Thee? / What then is he whose scorn I dread, / Whose wrath and hate make me afraid? / A man! an heir of death! a slave / To sin! a bubble on the wave!
VII. PETER’S SHAME
WHY WAS PAUL SO PUBLIC WITH THE REBUKE?
John Stott says that Peter’s action of rejecting table fellowship with the Gentiles was a public scandal and therefore the rebuke also had to be public. We read that Paul rebuked Peter “in front of them all.”
“A private offense deserves a private rebuke, but a public scandal demands public exposure.” (Ryken, 58)
Paul’s principle is stated clearly in Timothy: “Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.” (I Tim. 5:2)
CORE REASON FOR THE REBUKE
Martin Luther wrote, “He hath no trifling matter in hand, but the chiefest article of all Christian doctrine . . . .” (Stott, 54)
Peter’s, “Behavior was a contradiction of the truth of the Gospel.” (J.B. Phillips)
The truth of the Gospel is a straight and narrow path. Peter was deviating from the Gospel path.
“But when a leader avoids public confrontation with one who is causing others to lose their faith in the completeness of God’s grace expressed in the gospel of Christ, the cost is the loss of their experience of God’s grace. Paul was not willing for the church of Antioch to suffer this terrible Loss.” (Hansen, 66)
If Paul hadn’t acted there would be two churches in Antioch going to different directions. By acting Paul was saving the Jewish branch of the church from turning back to legalism …. Which is always just a generation away.
So “Paul is determined to defend and uphold the gospel [of free grace] at all costs, even at the expense of publicly humiliating a brother apostle.” (Stott, 54)
HOW SERIOUS WAS THIS REBUKE?
Paul says that the false teachers that were teaching “a different gospel” which was really not a Gospel at all, should be eternally condemned! In fact, even if an angel preached a gospel other than what they heard, that angel should be eternally condemned. (Gal. 1:6-9).
Some commentators say that Peter was not only in the wrong but Paul was accusing him of perverting the Gospel. This is the same charge brought against the false teachers in Galatians. (Gal. 1:6-9)
Paul is saying that if Peter is correct than Christ died for nothing. “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing.” (Gal. 2:21)
For Paul it was not peace at any price but the Gospel at all costs.
CONCLUSION
1. Paul didn’t split the church along racial / nationalistic lines. He wanted a blended church of Jews and Gentiles.
2. It seems racial overtones came into this conflict. Some commentators hold that the root of the problem here was not legalism but ethno-centrism. All of us like to think we are not influenced by our ethnicity and culture but that is not true. Fear, legalism, ethno-centrism were all involved.
Right now Arizona is dealing with illegal aliens. We all can justify our position but we need to ask ourselves if our position is being influenced by ethno-centrism.
3. Did this confrontation open a permanent breach between Peter and Paul? Most people cannot rebound graciously from a public rebuke, especially when they are clearly in the wrong. But maybe Peter did accept the rebuke graciously.
In II Peter 3:15-16 Paul refers to “our dear brother Paul” and acknowledges that Paul’s writings are “Scripture.”
SO WHAT???
1. We are hypocrites when are actions are not in line with our belief system, our theology.
2. We need to be aware that, like Barnabas, the negative characteristics of our personality type can lead us to wrong and even ungodly decision.
3. When dealing with the doctrine of salvation by grace we must not compromise for the sake of peace. We must not say, “Peace at any price” but rather “the Gospel at all costs.”
.