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.
and the rest of the Jews also played the same dissembling part with him; so that even Barnabas was carried away too by their dissimulation.
At Antioch, Jewish and Gentile believers ate at the same table. Then that table emptied. Peter pulled back first, the other Jewish believers followed, and even Barnabas went with them. How does a group of sincere people end up acting against what they know is true?
Paul does not accuse anyone of changing their mind. He accuses them of behaving against a conviction they still held.
"Dissimulation," that is, hypocrisy, is Paul's word for it, because they were acting straight against their own conscientious convictions. Truly, "the fear of man lays a snare" — even on apostles of Christ!
That distinction explains how the failure spread. No argument had changed anyone's mind.
Peter withdrew and separated himself. He did not do it because he was convinced he had done wrong. He simply gave way to the opposition he feared, where Paul had not given way. Such an example in such a place soon did great harm. The other Jews put on the same act with him. Again, it was not conviction, but a backward move made despite their convictions.
Reputation works in two directions. It makes a man give way, and it makes others copy him.
What a poor thing man is! We are weak in proportion to our importance before men. When we are nothing, we can do all things, as far as human opinion is concerned. At the same time, we have a bad influence on others in the same measure that they influence us. And they influence us in the measure that we give in to the desire to keep our reputation with them. Even the respect people rightly give us becomes a means of evil.
Paul names Barnabas last, and with surprise. Of all people, he had the most credentials and the least excuse.
That the other Jews should follow their leader may not be surprising. But what can we say when we see even Paul's own fellow-worker led astray! He had worked with Paul in the gospel. He had joined him in planting Gentile churches everywhere. He had served with such acceptance and blessing in this very church. He of all people should have been proof against such a thing. The Spirit describes him elsewhere as "a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith." ... It is not safe to follow even "a good man," as many in our own day can sadly testify. In such crises, the eye must be off men and fixed on the Lord, to reach a sound judgment.
This looked like table manners. It was the gospel. The old dispute had come back in new clothes. The argument sounded reasonable.
If they could not make Gentile converts live like Jews, then those who had been Jews should certainly keep apart from them. So the dividing wall would go back up in practice... True, no word of God imposed the law of Moses on the Gentiles. But the word of God had clearly imposed the law on the children of Israel. Must not all such still keep it? If so, they must then separate socially from other Christians. Paul and Barnabas had defended the stronghold of Christian truth with success. Now it seemed about to surrender without conditions.
With Barnabas gone, Paul had no one left beside him.
He had once been the strictest of Pharisees, full of zeal for the law. Yet by grace he held his ground. He stepped into the gap and preserved the truth for the whole Church of God. At that moment he was, you could say, the one strand of the rope that kept the whole from breaking.
The rebuke was public and humiliating. What it left behind in Peter is the surprise.
Peter forgot how Paul had opposed him to his face at Antioch, and had to shame him in front of them all. This is what grace can do. Grace is a fine thing, and this is a fine touch of it, as the curtain falls on the Apostle Peter. Whatever the scene at Antioch had stirred up in his heart was settled forever. He simply loved Paul, and loved him all the more because of his faithfulness.
- Fear starts it. Peter did not change his convictions; he gave way to opposition he feared. The snare is the fear of man, not bad doctrine.
- Reputation spreads it. The bigger our name, the weaker we are. The respect others give us becomes the channel our failure travels along.
- "Even Barnabas" measures it. Even a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith, went along with it. No name is safe to follow with the eye off the Lord.
- The gospel pays for it. What looked like a question of who eats with whom was the old wall between Jew and Gentile going back up, and the truth of the gospel surrendered in practice.
- One man can hold it. Paul stood alone, the one strand that kept the rope from breaking. The friendship survived too, because grace outlasts a rebuke.
But when I saw that they do not walk straightforwardly, according to the truth of the glad tidings, I said to Peter before all, If *thou*, being a Jew, livest as the nations and not as the Jews, how dost thou compel the nations to Judaize?
At Antioch, Jewish and Gentile believers ate at one table, and Peter — Cephas in this verse — ate freely with them until visitors came from Jerusalem. Then he pulled back, and Paul rebuked him in front of everyone — so why did a change of seat count as a break with the truth of the gospel?
Paul's words describe the shape of a walk. Peter had not turned back, but he had bent off the straight road.
This walk was not "straightforward," they were not going in a straight path. We need to walk straight. Peter was deviating, he made a detour. Sometimes we have to make a detour because the road is blocked. This detour was not allowed, because it compromised the truth of the gospel. This great truth and the unity of the company were at stake, and by the grace of God, Paul's action preserved them. Why was the rebuke public? The mistake had happened in public, so it needed a public correction. And the man who made it was a leader.
Peter had not changed his mind about the gospel. Something else moved him.
The root of Peter's failure, as so often with us, was the vanity of the flesh that wanted to look good in other people's eyes. He feared that he would lose his reputation with those "of the circumcision." This fear led him to pretend and take a crooked path. He no longer walked straight according to the truth of the gospel. By his act he ignored the unity of the Spirit, denied the truth of the gospel, and brought in division among the saints.
Nothing Peter said was wrong. What he did said something his preaching denied.
Peter at Antioch was clearly inconsistent with the truth of the Gospel. He does not appear to have at all denied it in his teaching. In theory he admitted its truth, but his action in withdrawing from the Gentile believers, and no longer eating with them, was disobedience to the truth. In practice it built again the "dividing wall" which the Cross had pulled down. It implied that believing Jews still lived in the life of Judaism, and believing Gentiles in the life of the Gentiles, instead of both now being in the life of Christ.
Ordinary decisions carry more weight than we assume:
In some simple matter of everyday life there may be, in effect, an abandonment of Christ and the truth of the gospel, a lie against His grace… We tend to make light of what concerns God, and to treat what affects ourselves as very important… So the truth of the gospel hung on a dinner. The simple act of eating or not eating with the Gentiles reveals a person's heart on the question of deliverance from the law.
Peter never made a rule. Yet his example set the terms for accepting Gentiles.
Why then would Peter force the Gentiles to keep Jewish custom before they could be given full Christian fellowship? It was a complete reversal of behavior. The principle in it was that of leaving Christianity and going back to Judaism.
The sting of Paul's question lies in Peter's own freedom from the law:
What had Peter been doing? He had never held the law as a rule for the Jewish believers. Why, then, did he yield to an act which implied it among the Gentiles? If it was not so in Jerusalem, where God had long ago bound it on their conscience, what a turning away from the truth! A man who knew his own deliverance was now insisting on it in practice at Antioch.
Peter's honoured place made the damage worse, not the rebuke improper.
The more a man is honoured, the greater the stumbling-block to others if he fails — and in this case there was true ground for respect. That is what happened here. All the Jews, and even Barnabas, joined Peter in the pretence, and no longer dared to walk with the Gentiles. The unity of the Spirit was lost, as also the truth of the gospel. Paul could not let this pass. When he saw that Peter was not walking straight, he rebuked him in front of everyone. Authority cannot make evil good nor good evil.
The clash did not end in a rift. Both men had a part in what came out of it.
It was faithfulness to God that gave the rebuke, and grace that enabled Peter to profit by it. The result was that the gospel of Christ was preserved.
- Straight — the standard is a straight walk. Peter took a detour, and it compromised the truth of the gospel.
- Fear — the detour began in wanting to look good to others. Fear of losing his reputation bent his conduct.
- Practice — his teaching stayed right. His conduct rebuilt the wall the Cross had pulled down.
- Spread — one honoured man's example pulled the other Jews, and even Barnabas, after him. The fault was public, so the correction was public.
- Preserved — faithfulness gave the rebuke, grace received it, and the gospel came through intact.
We, Jews by nature, and not sinners of [the] nations,
Paul's public correction of Peter does not stop at a question. It moves on to a statement Peter could not deny. It starts from the one advantage Peter was leaning on — Jewish birth. The verse grants that advantage in the Jews' own words, and that concession is what springs Paul's argument.
The phrase is not just an insult. It reflects how Scripture speaks of those outside Israel. God never gave the nations the law of Moses, so they could not break it as Israel could. Scripture uses a different word for them. (Older translations read "sinners of the Gentiles," and that is the wording the writers below quote.)
The Jew had a claim of righteousness, because he was under law. But if he sinned, he carried extra guilt. He had broken a law he knew, and that law was the law of God. So he was a "transgressor." The Gentile could not be one. As a rule the Gentile knew nothing about the law, and most of them had not even heard of it. So it is quite wrong to use that word of the Gentiles, as if they were transgressors. Scripture never speaks that way, but calls them lawless or sinners; as for instance Galatians 2:15 says, "sinners of the Gentiles."
It was also the everyday label Jews used for outsiders. Paul puts it back in front of Peter.
"Sinners from the nations" was the way the Jews looked at the Gentiles. The Jews believed they were better than the Gentiles. Paul uses those old words back to Peter — words that showed the natural pride of heart which refused to admit "there is no difference." Peter knew this was true. He knew well that there was "no difference" — not in sin before God, and not in salvation by grace alone, without works.
The distinction Paul names was real. It came by birth, not by anything a Jew chose or believed.
"We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles." This again is a hard saying. No one is a Christian by nature. He may be born to Christian parents, brought up under Christian discipline, and keep to Christian ordinances. But unless he is born of God, all such outward privileges are worth nothing to him. Here is the real point: how few ask themselves — Am I in Christ? Now the Jew had natural hereditary privileges. He was born a Jew.
The label lands on the reader too.
It is good for us believers from among the Gentiles to keep fresh in our memory the healthy though humbling fact that, apart from a living faith in Christ, "sinners of the Gentiles" is our natural and true description. It is a title of dishonour, which faith exchanges for a new and lasting name of praise.
Notice the pronoun. Paul does not say "you" to Peter. He says "we," and puts them both inside one confession.
In verses 15 and 16 we have the apostle's assertion which followed his question. In this assertion Paul could link Peter with himself, and Peter could not deny it. "WE," he says. "We, who are Jews by nature" have recognised that justification does not come by "the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ." So we turned from law to Christ, and He justified us.
The privilege taught these men a lesson outsiders never had to learn. The law left its own people bankrupt.
These Jews by nature were not sinners of the Gentiles. But God had taught them a much deeper truth. They came to see that under the law they were helpless, hopeless debtors to the Lord. They also saw that outward Jewish privilege was completely empty and misleading... What should have been their crown of honour had become their yoke of degradation.
Paul starts with the best case for Jewish standing. Then he gives it no weight in justification, and nothing is left for anyone to stand on.
He speaks of something they might have boasted about, since he was a Jew himself. But they had come to see that no person is justified on the principle of works of law. This took the whole foundation from under the feet of those who made the Law their support. It completely destroys confidence in the flesh. It brings all people down to one level of spiritual helplessness and nothingness.
- Birth. Being a Jew by birth was a real inherited privilege. But it was birth, not new birth, and outward privilege saves no one.
- Label. Scripture calls the nations sinners, not transgressors, because they were never under the law. The label was true, but it fed Jewish pride.
- "We." Paul joins himself to Peter in the sentence. The argument becomes a shared confession Peter could not deny.
- Bankrupt. Those with the greatest advantage learned first that they were helpless debtors. Their crown of honour had become a yoke.
- Level ground. Once the best human standing counts for nothing in justification, everyone stands on the same ground. Faith in Christ is the only footing left.
but knowing that a man is not justified on the principle of works of law [nor] but by the faith of Jesus Christ, *we* also have believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified on the principle of [the] faith of Christ; and not of works of law; because on the principle of works of law no flesh shall be justified.
Paul rebuked Peter in public at Antioch over a shared meal, and out of that clash came this verse. It sets works of the law against faith in Christ, and says only one of them can justify anyone.
The dispute looked small — a question of who could share a meal. Paul read it differently.
Refusing to share a table with fellow believers who were not circumcised looked like a small thing. Yet Paul saw the truth of the gospel at stake. A straw is enough to show which way a stream flows, and Paul judged this the same way... Paul reminded his Jewish brother of the ground on which they all stood before God. Had they ever found justification by law? Had the law ever done anything for them but condemn them?
Paul begins with the people who had the most to boast about. Then he takes their ground away.
He speaks of what might have been an occasion for boasting, since he himself was a Jew. But God had given them light to know that no person is justified on the principle of works of law. This took the whole foundation out from under the feet of those who made the Law their support. It destroys confidence in the flesh completely. It brings all people down to the same level of spiritual helplessness and nothingness.
So what counts as a work of the law? The answer reaches wider than the law of Moses.
Bear in mind that when the apostle Paul dwells on law, he does not limit his remarks to the Jewish law, but argues on the principle itself. He says, and means, not just that you cannot be justified by the works of the law, but by no law at all. If there were a law that could justify, it would have to be the law of God given through Moses. But Paul goes further: by works of law you cannot be justified. The law principle is opposed to justification instead of being the means of it.
The same principle appears wherever people expect God to meet their own effort halfway.
What is it to be "justified by the law"? Does the person who holds that "man must do his part and God will do His" come near that ground, or not? Law works are not bad works. Its first and great commandment is, "You shall love the Lord your God." The second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself"... Yet those who are of the works of the law — standing on that ground before God — are under the curse.
So what does justified mean? It is a courtroom word, and it means more than being let off.
Justification is judicial righteousness. In other words, God counts us righteous before Himself... It means that God accounts us judicially righteous, in His own presence. That is the believer's standing: positive, absolute and unchanging, now and forever. It is not just pardon or forgiveness, which is negative in character. It is a positive state of settled and permanent righteousness in Christ before God.
Three small Greek words stand behind this verse. Each says something different about faith.
The Greek New Testament uses three prepositions with the verb to justify. All three occur in two verses in Galatians (2:16-17). We are said to be justified by, or on the principle of (ek), faith, in contrast to works. Justification flows from faith, not from works. Then we are said to be justified instrumentally by, or through (dia), faith. We are also said to be justified by, or in (en), Christ, in contrast to being justified by, or in (en), the law.
Paul's final clause is not a new ruling. Peter had read it long before.
Peter and Paul themselves have no hope of being justified by works... Whether Paul or Peter, Jew or Gentile, Galatians or Chinese, there is no difference. We all have sinned. The only hope for every one of us is Christ Jesus, and only faith in Him. Why then, Peter, are you adding your own works?... Do you not remember your own Old Testament, where Psalm 143:2 says, "No man living shall be justified"?
(Willis quotes an older rendering of Psalm 143:2; the ESV reads, "no one living is righteous before you.")
- Stakes — a straw shows which way a stream flows. One small compromise at a meal showed the gospel drifting, so Paul rebuked Peter in front of everyone.
- Level — the argument starts with the people who had the most to boast about. It leaves them on the same level as everyone else.
- Law — no law at all can justify, not only the law of Moses. The works law asks for are good works, so it is easy to lean on them.
- Faith — justification flows from faith, comes through faith, and rests in Christ, not in law.
- Verdict — not a pardon on probation, but a settled standing of righteousness. Their own Scriptures had already said no one could reach it any other way.