But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to [the] face, because he was to be condemned
At Antioch, Jewish and Gentile believers ate at the same table. Then Cephas — Peter, the most respected of the twelve apostles — withdrew and broke that table apart. Paul confronted him in the open, and later wrote the whole episode into a letter. Why was one shared meal worth a clash between two apostles?
Peter did not teach the error. He had already learned the truth he now dropped in practice, and he had defended it in the open.
Some from Judea had taught the believers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." Peter had been taught the folly of this in a remarkable way (see Acts 10:9-16). For a while he learned his lesson. He said to Cornelius, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean." After Peter had returned to Jerusalem, he defended his conduct in eating with uncircumcised people. When he went to Antioch he at first ate with the Gentiles. But when certain men came from James, "he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party."
Sitting down to eat with someone was not a neutral act. It said something publicly, and everyone watching understood the message.
Before certain men came from James, "he ate with the Gentiles." That was a mark of fellowship with them. Even now, and everywhere, it is the well-known sign of the same thing... In ordinary life, sharing a meal is the token of friendly feeling. With Christians it ought to be so all the more, for their calling is to walk in everything with godly sincerity.
So the withdrawal itself taught something, whatever Peter meant by it. Follow what it implies.
If Peter had the mind of the Lord in separating himself from the Gentile believers at Antioch, then something else was needed. For why did he now refuse to eat with them? Only because they were uncircumcised. If Peter was right, circumcision still counted for something, since it gave the Jew an advantage. In other words, faith in Christ needed a work of the law added to it for justification. Someone might argue that this was a small thing. Give up that one point, and Jewish and Gentile believers would have peace. But this "small thing" undermined the whole truth of grace, and cast a slur on the work of Christ.
One old translation softened the word Paul used. Peter's high standing made his act worse, not easier to excuse.
His cowardice was all the more shameful now, because he had confronted the strict Pharisee-minded believers in Jerusalem once (Acts 11) and again (Acts 15). It was worse still because he was so honoured and influential. But the apostle to the Gentiles was faithful and resisted him to the face, because he was "condemned" — not merely "blameworthy," which is how the Latin version wrongly softens it.
Peter's withdrawal did not stop with Peter. His example pulled in the other Jewish believers, and then Paul's own colleague.
No wonder the other Jews followed their leader. But what can we say when we see even Paul's own fellow-worker led astray!... It is a great test for the saints when such men go astray. Satan knows how to mislead lovely characters, so that he may the better achieve his unworthy ends. Their personal qualities and their past faithful service have won such men a place in the hearts of the saints. All of this puts the unwary off their guard, and so traps their souls. It is not safe to follow even "a good man." In such times the eye must be off men and fixed on the Lord, to reach a sound judgment.
Rank did not silence Paul. Peter was honoured and senior, yet the gospel was in Paul's care.
To Paul, Peter was not a superior before whom juniors must keep a respectful silence. God had worked powerfully in Peter. Even so, his fellow apostle stayed faithful to the One who had called him. He could not let anyone falsify the gospel, which the Lord Himself had entrusted to his care. Eager as he was, poor Peter always cared too much about the opinion of others.
Peter's own later writing shows how he took the rebuke.
Notice how Peter writes of Paul, the man who once had to withstand and rebuke him at Antioch. There is not a trace of bitterness, nor a trace of the law-keeping spirit Paul had to withstand. Martyrdom was approaching for both of them, and it is "our beloved brother Paul." Delightful, is it not? Here is the freest flow of Christian affection. Here is the fullest acknowledgement of the grace and gift given to another man rather than to himself.
- Fear — Peter knew better and had defended the truth before. At Antioch no new teaching moved him. Fear of the circumcision party did.
- Fellowship — eating together was the known sign of fellowship. Peter's withdrawal preached louder than any sermon.
- Fault — the word is stronger than "blameworthy". Peter stood condemned. His honoured place made the cowardice worse, not lighter.
- Follow — the failure spread to the other Jews and even to Barnabas. It is not safe to follow even a good man. The eye must be off men and on the Lord.
- Faithfulness — the open rebuke kept the gospel safe, and Peter took it without bitterness. He later called Paul "our beloved brother".
for before that certain came from James, he ate with [those of] the nations; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those of [the] circumcision;
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.