What was the incident at Antioch in Galatians 2:11-14?

Next he takes yet another step. For while he shows the respect that Peter and James and John in Jerusalem had to himself and to his work, he does another thing still more disastrous to those who would impose the law on Gentiles. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." So far was Paul from being withstood by Peter at Jerusalem, that Peter gave him the right hand of fellowship. But when Peter was come to Antioch, Paul withstood him to the face. And this clearly was a thing well known. "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles," which was a mark of communion with them, even now and everywhere the well-known sign of what is equivalent. I am not speaking here of eating the Lord's Supper, which is the highest symbol of communion; but, in ordinary life, to take a common meal together is the token of friendly feeling, and with Christians it ought specially to be so, for they are called to walk in everything with godly sincerity. Hence the importance attached to the act with people among Christians, and more especially in the face of Jewish separation from Gentiles, which, under the law, was God's command. Peter had been in the habit of eating with the Gentiles, a thought which no man, acting on Jewish principles, could have entertained; but when certain persona came from James, "he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." How marvellous is the influence of prejudices, of legal prejudices especially! Swayed thereby, Peter gives up his liberty, and no longer eats with the Gentiles: and this was the very chief of the apostles! Trifling as the act might seem, it was a weighty one in the eyes of God and of His servant. Paul was given to see that in this seemingly little thing the truth of the gospel was surrendered.

Let us consider how solemn and how practical a thing this is. In some simple matter of every-day life there may be a virtual abandonment of Christ and the truth of the gospel, a lie against His grace. It is well to bear in mind that, in a commonplace act, in a thing that might seem to be of no comparative importance, God would have us to look at things in their sources, as they touch the truth and grace of God. We are apt to make light of what relates to God, and to make what affects ourselves of great account. But God in His goodness would have us feel deeply what concerns Christ and the gospel, passing by what affects ourselves. Why should Paul thus rebuke Peter publicly! Was there not a cause? Was there not a crisis come in the history! Where Peter was acting as the apostle of the circumcision, there Paul speaks privately. But now, when the foundation of grace was concerned, the same man is bold as a lion, and withstands Peter to the face because he was to be condemned. There was no compromise, no timidity, no mere human prudence about the matter, no consideration of his own character or Peter's, but there was the looking at Christ's glory in the gospel. It was in the very field where Peter was peculiarly responsible to his Master to maintain the truth, and there he had failed. Therefore the Apostle Paul stood on firm ground here, and acted fearlessly. He withstood Peter to the face, who did not show himself at all according to the Lord's new name, in this business. He was more like Simon-Barjonas than the rock-man, which he should have been. He had fallen back into his own natural ways; for ardour of nature is constantly given to reaction. What gave such strength to the apostle's remonstrance, was that this took place after that solemn conference at Jerusalem, where Peter took an active part to prove the liberty that God had given to the Gentiles; where he showed that God had made choice among them, that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe it; where he had wound up his declaration by the remarkable words so galling to Jewish pride, and strengthening the Gentiles who might have been uneasy: "We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved even as they." He had taught, yea, in the face of the Jews, not that the Gentiles should be saved even as they, but that the Jewish believers should be saved even as the Gentiles. So that nothing could be stronger. He had no thought of treating the Gentiles as if they were only now blessed on some irregular and disputable tenure of mercy; for in truth, God was bringing out salvation to the Gentiles more clearly, if there was any difference. "We believe, that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved even as they." The Gentile salvation was made the very pattern of those who should be saved among the Jews. And what a sorrow that after all this, Peter should, even on this head, go astray! And Barnabas himself, not the companion of Peter, but of Paul — who had first discerned his worth and devotedness, and had joined him in so many labours among the Gentiles — who had been specially named as one of those who should go up to Jerusalem to set at rest this grave question; he was drawn away by the dissimulation of Peter and the rest! The Apostle Paul was not wanting to the occasion, and soon discerns that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel. But wherein had they shown this lack of uprightness? In ceasing to eat with the Gentiles. Thus, on a dinner depended the truth of the gospel. The simple act of eating or not eating with the Gentiles betrays one's heart as to the question of deliverance from the law.

So fatal a point was this, if allowed, that Paul says to Peter before them all, "If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" What had Peter been about? He had not, in any wise, maintained 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 of old bound it upon their conscience, what a turning away from the truth, that one who knew his deliverance should practically insist upon it at Antioch! This was the serious matter for which Paul rebuked Peter. And now he reasons upon it: "We who are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles," (the force of "we," as compared with "you," is necessary to be remarked in this epistle and elsewhere,) "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Bear in mind, also, that when the Apostle Paul dwells upon law, he does not confine his remarks to the Jewish law, but reasons abstractedly. He says and means not merely that you cannot be justified by the works of the law, but by no law at all. If there was a law that could justify, it must be the law of God divulged by Moses. But Paul goes farther, and insists that "by works of law" you cannot be justified. The law-principle is opposed to justification instead of being the means of it. He takes up the fact, that by these works of law no flesh can be justified.

Then comes the account of Peter's visit. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Gal. 2:11-14). The story is very simple, if it were not so sad. While alone at Antioch, — where we may well believe, as the fruit of Paul's ministry, that heavenly truth prevailed, — Peter went in and out among the Gentiles, and ate with them. He walked in the same liberty as Paul, in this respect. But when certain came down from James, and from Jerusalem, which was the centre of fleshly religion, and where its notions and customs yet largely ruled the Christians, and where, I take it, Peter usually resided, and of course was exceptionally well known, he was afraid to use this liberty, being fully conscious that it was condemned by many of his friends there, who, though believers, were yet entirely Jewish in their thoughts and ways. Fearing their disapproval, he withdrew, and separated himself from the Gentiles."

Doubtless the Jewish brethren had many an argument to plead with Peter ere this took place. They doubtless represented to him what the effect of his ways in Antioch would be in Jerusalem, when they became known there; that the result would be loss of esteem for, and confidence in him as a leader; possibly too that dissension would arise. In an evil hour our apostle listens to these legalist croakers, blind to the baneful results of the retrograde step, which they induce him to take, under the influence of "the fear of Man, which brings a snare."

Some from Judea had taught the brethren, "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." It was an attempt to revive Judaism, and to impose its ritualistic observances on the Gentile believers as a condition of salvation. Peter had been taught the folly of this in a remarkable manner (see Acts 10:9-16); and for the time he learned his lesson, for he said to Cornelius, "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (v. 28); and after Peter had returned to Jerusalem he justified his conduct in eating with uncircumcised persons. Still further, when he went to Antioch he at first ate with the Gentiles; but when certain came from James, "he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." (Gal. 2:12.) The effect was, Peter's influence being so great, "the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." Paul was thus left alone in his contention, that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."

The great question then was very simple. Was anything, circumcision or anything else, necessary for justification in addition to faith in Christ Jesus? If Peter had the mind of the Lord in separating himself from the Gentile believers at Antioch, there was evidently something else required. For why did he now refuse to eat with them? Solely on the ground that they were uncircumcised. (v. 12.) If then Peter were right, circumcision was still for profit, inasmuch as it conferred an advantage on the Jew. In other words, a work of the law must be added to faith in Christ for justification. It was a small thing, it might have been argued, and if the point were but yielded peace between the Jewish and Gentile believers would be established and preserved. But this "small thing" undermined the whole truth of grace, and cast a slur upon the work of Christ. It was therefore a supreme moment in the history of the Church; and to have accepted this addition to the gospel of Christ would have perverted it, made it "another gospel," to preach which would bring down God's displeasure and judgment. Hence Paul said, "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Chapter 1:6-9.)

Paul therefore had no other alternative, if he would be faithful to the trust committed to him, than to withstand Peter to the face because he was to be condemned.* Peter was not, at this moment, walking "uprightly according to the truth of the gospel"; and consequently, painful as it must have been to Paul, he had to be rebuked. The case would not have been met by dissociation from Peter's practice, or by withdrawing to another field of service, for the maintenance of the truth of God was involved. In the presence of all the believers at Antioch, Paul therefore exposed and condemned the action of his fellow-servant; and the proof that he was in communion with the mind of God in doing so is the fact that he was led, as inspired of the Holy Spirit, to preserve the record of the contention. Peter, on the other hand, makes no allusion to it in his epistles; but to show that grace wrought in his heart for restoration, and hence, that he fully accepted the action of his younger colleague, he was guided to speak of "our beloved brother Paul" and of his writings. It was fidelity to God that administered the rebuke, and it was grace that enabled Peter to profit by it; and the issue was the preservation of the gospel of Christ.

From the very outset the greatest difficulties which Christianity had to encounter sprang up from within. As the apostle prophesied at a later date, "I know this … that of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:29-30.) So was it at Antioch at the particular moment of which our scripture speaks; and, strange to say, it was Peter the apostle, who had received so many marks of his Lord's favour, who had been admitted to special intimacies, and who had been restored by His tender grace after his grievous fall, who headed, or at least sanctioned, a party in the Church of God. The facts are very simple. In the reception of Cornelius Peter had been taught the mind of God as to Gentile believers, that he was not to call those whom God had cleansed unclean. And he had not forgotten the lesson, for when he first went to Antioch he mixed with the Gentile believers freely, and ate with them on the ground of a common fellowship. But when "certain came from James," from Jerusalem, he yielded to their Jewish prejudices, "and separated himself, fearing them of the circumcision." Himself a Jew by birth, and desiring to stand well with the Jewish party, he, in a moment of weakness, identified himself with their feelings, and made a schism in the assembly. The effect was disastrous upon the other Jews, and even Barnabas was carried away by their dissimulation.

Peter had visited Antioch and Paul had to withstand him to the face, for he was blameworthy.

Coming to Antioch, where Peter found a large Gentile church he there enjoyed his liberty in Christ; he ate with the Gentiles, realizing that the middle wall of partition was broken down (Ephesians 2: 14) and that believing Jews and Gentiles were one in Christ. All went well till some from James in Jerusalem showed themselves in Antioch. Then Peter, afraid of opposition, not because he thought in the least that he was wrong, separated himself, leaving them which were of the circumcision. His example led the other Jewish believers to dissemble likewise with him and even Barnabas joined in and, as a result, the unity of the Spirit was given up and the truth of the gospel marred. And Paul when he saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the Gospel, rebuked Peter before them all. The leaven of the Pharisee, hypocrisy, is manifest in Peter's action. He wanted to appear before those who were still Jewish in their customs and sentiments as being in sympathy with them, and therefore he gave up his liberty in Christ, which he knew was according to the truth of the gospel. Paul rebuking Peter in public shows that Peter had not the least authority over Paul.

Such then had been the confirmation given him; but he now goes further and shows that upon an after occasion at Antioch, he had had to withstand Peter himself and that as blameworthy. He had been with them in the unrestricted liberty of Christianity, eating with the Gentiles. A change was induced by the coming of some from James. We see how firmly the Judaizing character still remained with many of these. And when they were come, Peter withdrew and separated himself, not from any conviction of error on his part, but simply as giving way, as Paul had not given way, to the opposition which he feared. Such an example in such a place soon worked disastrously. The other Jews, apparently the mass of those there, dissembled likewise with him. It was not, as we see again, conviction, but retrograde movement in spite of their convictions; and this went so far that Barnabas, the companion of Paul himself; was carried away with this dissimulation. The power of God to resist this movement was found with Paul alone. He saw that they "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel;" and singling out Peter, not now for private conference, but in the presence of them all, (for Peter needed not to be convinced but convicted,) he said to him: "If thou being a Jew livest after the manner of Gentiles," as he had been doing, "and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou now the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" Necessarily they were doing that if they were making circumcision a necessity for the Jews to have fellowship with them. He appeals to the character of Judaism in itself in opposition to this. What had they themselves who were Jews by nature done with regard to this? They were not sinners of the Gentiles, yet — he could speak for himself fully, as we know, as the most zealous of law-keepers, — yet they knew that a man was not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. They had given up, therefore, the one for the other. They had believed in Christ to be justified by the faith of Christ; because by the works of the law could no flesh be justified. Judaism had thus been given up: for men could not take up the law as they pleased, as a rule of life, as people say sometimes, but not as a rule of judgment. They had to take it for that for which God gave it, and a rule of judgment it necessarily was if it was to answer the purpose for which He gave it. If then they had renounced the law in order to be justified by Christ, and had found justification in this way, could it at the same time be sin to renounce it; and had Christ become the minister of sin in this matter of their justification? To build again the things destroyed was to make themselves transgressors in having destroyed them. The law either existed for them or it did not exist. We see that he goes much further than applying it or not to Gentiles; and carries to its full result the principle of the decision at Jerusalem, which went beyond the decision itself. He himself through the law had become dead to the law, and that be might live to God. The whole Christian life, therefore, was involved in this. The epistle to the Romans has made us fully acquainted with the argument here. The law itself, through Christ bearing its penalty for them, had, as it were, affirmed their death to it. He was crucified with Christ, with Him who, as he says afterwards, had borne the curse of the law, its extremest penalty, beyond which it had no claim at all. Thus he was free. Dead with Christ, it was to live, and he lived; yet not, so to speak, himself. The Christ who had been upon the cross for him, who was now in heaven, had won him for Himself, that Christ who henceforth in the glorious reality of what he saw Him to be, lived in him. It was more than Christ being his life: Christ was his true self, the aim and object of his life from henceforth; for the life which he lived in the flesh, he lived now in the faith of the Son of God who, in the wonder of His perfect grace, had loved and given Himself for him. Would they put Christ under the law also? Alas, some would and do even today. For the apostle, it was far otherwise. The law, if it remained now for him, would be simply the destruction of all the value of Christ's death for him. If righteousness came by the law, that death of Christ was null and void. Thus it is plain that the question of the law as a possible rule of life for the Christian is settled by the apostle's words here. God never made it that. It is manifest that even as a rule, if it were, — nay, just because it was — the perfect rule for the Jew, if the Christian be anything different, anything higher than a Jew, the Jew's rule could not give to his walk its Christian character. Instead of being too high for Christian attainment as a standard, it is all too low. In fact, there is nothing of the heavenly side of Christianity expressed in the law at all.

With this truth of the Gospel, Peter at Antioch was plainly inconsistent. He does not appear to have at all denied it in his teaching. Theoretically he admitted its truth, but his action in withdrawing from the Gentile believers, and no longer eating with them, was disobedience to the truth. It practically erected again the "middle wall of partition" which the Cross had demolished; it inferred that believing Jews still lived in the life of Judaism, and believing Gentiles in the life of Gentiledom, instead of both now being in the life of Christ.

The matter thus became very serious. The whole truth of Christianity was at stake, whether Peter, Barnabas, and the rest perceived it or not. All mere fleshly distinctions have been ended in the death of Christ; salvation is of grace and free to all alike; and of all saved ones a new thing has been formed in the earth — the body of Christ. All this was challenged by Peter's conduct at Antioch. What is man — even at his best! Peter, the man who opened the door of faith to the Gentiles in Acts 10, would now thrust them from him as unworthy of his association! Barnabas, the man who, in conjunction with Paul, had led many of these Gentiles to Christ, and who had united with Paul in his contention with Judaizing teachers, now joins with Peter in his avoidance of his uncircumcised brethren! "Dissimulation," i.e., hypocrisy, Paul calls it, because they were acting in the teeth of their own conscientious convictions. Truly, "the fear of man brings a snare," even upon apostles of Christ!

But ere formulating plans for another tour, Peter's visit to Antioch, related only in Gal.2:11-21, we presume took place. Another crisis in the Church's history arose. Certain came from James whilst Peter was in the city, stirring up Judaising controversy afresh; not now insisting upon the converts from heathenism observing the law, but arousing those who had been Jews to keep apart socially from such, so as not to eat with them. How busy was the enemy! How persistent in his efforts to divide the assembly in that city, and thus, of course, to bring discredit on the work! As a Jew Peter had rightly never kept company with any Gentiles (Acts 10:28). God, however, had taught him, on the housetop at Joppa, to call no man common or unclean. In conformity with that he was mixing socially at Antioch with the converts from the Gentiles, for all true believers were, and are, members of the one body of Christ, and so members one of another. The middle wall of partition has for all such been broken down, the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, having been annulled in the flesh of Christ.

Certain men, however - Paul does not call them brethren (Gal.2:12) - came from James, and, working upon Peter, made him separate socially from those formerly Gentiles. The old question was thus revived, but in a new dress. If Gentile converts could not be Judaised, those who had been Jews should certainly keep apart from them. Thus the middle wall would be in practice re-erected. Coming from James, and with Peter now gained over, victory seemed almost secured; for the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. This new turn in affairs was speciously arranged, and one can see how those not established in full Christian teaching might by it be carried away. For, granted that no word of God imposed the keeping of the law of Moses on the Gentiles, the word of God had distinctly imposed the law on the children of Israel. Must not, then, all such still keep it? If so, separation socially from other Christians must of necessity take place. The citadel of Christian truth, which Paul and Barnabas had successfully defended, seemed on the point of being unconditionally surrendered.

For Peter was ensnared. Barnabas too was led away. Fear of man, not conviction, was acting upon Peter. He, and the other Jews at Antioch, dissembled, writes Paul (Gal.2:13). If Paul now gave way all would be lost. But he, formerly a Pharisee of Pharisees, and once so zealous for the law, kept his ground through grace, stepped into the breach and preserved the truth for the whole Church of God. He was, as it were, at this time the one strand of the rope which preserved the whole from breaking. He withstood Peter to the face. Peter's course was inconsistent with that which he held and had declared at Jerusalem (Gal.2:16). It would make him, too, a transgressor through building again the things which he had destroyed. For why had he given up for a time social separation if it was right to uphold it? Besides, his present conduct was really making Christ the minister of sin. He had left legal observances as a disciple of Christ to be justified by faith. If that was really wrong, in what a solemn light it placed the Lord Jesus Christ! (Gal.2:17,18). These arguments we suppose were convincing, and had the effect of recovering Peter and Barnabas; so that Paul could take the latter into counsel about a second missionary journey, to revisit the places in which they had worked together. Into this episode in Paul's life Luke has not entered. We can understand that. His purpose was to trace out at this time the work among the Gentiles. That incident at Antioch, therefore, he passed over, as not bearing directly on his subject.

Verse 11. Paul recalls another case: one in which he had been compelled to reprove and withstand Peter, who had come to Antioch, where the church had been founded among the Gentiles, though there were Jews among them also. Poor Peter! he shewed himself at the beginning, quite ready to eat with the Gentiles, he was free from the prejudices of his countrymen: but alas! when certain came down from Jerusalem, from James, who was the leader of the work and of the assembly in the civil and religious capital of the Jews, where the law was still observed by the Christians - then Peter, full of ardour but sensitive to the opinion of others, and timid in the presence of reproach, withdraws, and no longer eats with the Gentiles.

This was to destroy the divine work, which had already been wrought at Jerusalem - an evident act of unfaithfulness. The more a man is honoured - and in this case, there was true ground for respect - the greater the stumbling-block to others, if he fail, and thus it happened here. All the Jews and even Barnabas also, dissembled with Peter, 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; and when he saw that Peter walked not uprightly, he reproved him before all. Authority cannot make evil good nor good evil. We see moreover, that Peter had not the very smallest authority over Paul; and this is why the latter recalls the fact. Peter deserved to be rebuked, and Paul rebuked him in the presence of all, saying: "If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"