Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Evening Bible Devotions: December 2
Today is: Thursday, April 25th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of December: (Show All Months)
Gal_2:11-13
On arriving at Antioch, a meeting of the church was convened, and the epistolary decree delivered. It was received in a most satisfactory manner. The Gentile Christians heartily rejoiced at having this vexed question settled on terms so slightly burdensome to them, and the Jewish Christians seem to have at least acquiesced in it as all authoritative decision of the matter. Judas and Silas ably supported these decisions by their discourses and influence, and when the whole business seemed happily concluded, Judas went home to Jerusalem; but he was unaccompanied by Silas, who thought it proper to remain at Antioch. Paul and Barnabas also continued there, apparently for a good while, “teaching and preaching the word of the Lord” with great success.
These happy days could not, however, always last, and we presently come to sad scenes between Paul and Peter, and—oh, grief!—between Paul and Barnabas.
It is to this period that we, with the best authorities, ascribe that visit of Peter to the metropolis of Gentile Christianity, which is recorded in Paul’s interesting Epistle to the Galatians. He came, as far as appears, without any intention of interfering with Paul in his work as the apostle to the Gentiles, and with a purpose to carry out in practice the decree to which he had been an acting party. On his arrival, therefore, he ate freely with the Gentiles in their social entertainments, as well as in the Lord’s Supper, and in the Agape; or love feasts. But soon there came up some members of the Jerusalem church to Antioch, who, influenced by the old leaven of Jewish exclusiveness, evinced no little interest in observing how the apostle of the circumcision would deport himself in such new company; and holding themselves out too ready to take offence at his conduct, and to impart their own impressions to the strict Judaists at home. In spite of the decree of the council, these seem to have shrunk from full communion with the heathens. And, as a writer Note: Thiersch, History of the Christian Church, p. 125. lately cited observes, “It is not so easy to yield to a consequence as to see it.” Indeed, as the same author truly remarks, “We need only look to the subsequent divisions of the church (in which the adherents of one confession, while they dare not deny salvation to those of another, or insist on their coming over, still refrain conscientiously from communion with them) in order to find a repetition of the same state of feeling and conduct.” Peter separated himself from the society of the Gentiles, and his example was followed by all the members of Jewish descent, even by Barnabas himself. They seem then to have even celebrated their communion and their Agape separately; and Paul was the only Israelite who remained in free intercourse with the Gentiles. Some have questioned that the division had the extent and significance thus assigned to it. But it is forgotten that the Lord’s Supper was at first (as repeatedly intimated in the epistles, and as is known from early Christian writers) partaken, as in its original institution, in connection with a social meal, of ordinary materials, but called from the occasion an agape, usually rendered love feast; and this being expressly a feast of brotherhood, it is difficult to see how the Jews could object to take part in the domestic meals of the Gentiles, without still more pointedly objecting to this more public fraternization with the Gentile converts, and thus recognizing them as sanctified.
It may well be asked—Is it possible that Peter, who had been the instrument of opening the door of hope to the Gentiles—Peter, who had spoken so generously and wisely in the council at Jerusalem, should thus fall back upon Jewish notions? This has seemed so strange to many as to lead them to assign this visit to a date earlier than that of the Jerusalem decree. But the circumstances cannot be easily adjusted to this hypothesis; and even if it were admitted, the case of Cornelius would still remain a stumbling-block for those who would uphold the consistency of this apostle.
How could Peter reconcile his present scruples with his experience in that case? Closely considered, it will be seen, that this case left many questions unsettled. Where was yet the proof that a mere heathen might be baptized, without having beforehand visibly received the Spirit? What warrant did it afford to go out and preach to those yet enslaved by idolatry? Where was the authority for Peter to turn his back on the Jews as a nation, especially when another had been raised up as apostle to the heathen? Besides, it is ever to be remembered, that not a word had been yet, nor was until many years after, spoken, as to the obligation of the Jews themselves to relinquish their ceremonial law—which all the Jewish disciples, even Paul himself, continued to observe; and Peter seems to have felt that at the moment when the churches should relinquish the Mosaic ritual, and he should act as Paul had done, all hope of operating upon the Jews as a body, was at an end. From all these reasons, it will appear, that the mere baptism of Cornelius, made it no self-evident matter that Peter, and the brethren with him, were no longer called upon to pay any regard to the Jews, and to the doubts of Jewish Christians.
To reconcile his conduct at Antioch, with the part he took in the Jerusalem council, is at the first view more difficult. Yet if we look narrowly into the matter, the error of Peter will appear but too natural, great as was the evil, and dangerous as the consequences might have been. He shrunk at the thought of the stir, and perhaps the division, his conduct might occasion at Jerusalem. He feared the weakening of his own authority in the church, and losing his hold of the Jews. It may be also that, as Dr. Brown suggests, his fear of “these men” from Jerusalem, was an apprehension of their being so disgusted at seeing the unreserved intercourse of Jews and Gentiles, a thing so abhorrent to their prejudices, as to be tempted to renounce Christianity, and revert to Judaism. Note: Expository Discourses on Galatians, p. 85.
He might, moreover, doubt if he had done well in coming into a situation where he must take either the one side or the other. We cannot wonder at his yielding, although he ought to have persisted in the course he had adopted; and although by acting contrary to his own expressed convictions, he justly exposed himself to Paul’s charge of “dissimulation.” He failed not so grievously, but in the same way, when he denied Christ. He had, at Antioch, as in the courts of the high priest, thrown himself uncalled into danger. He was out of his place, and therefore weak. He sacrificed his conscience to his fears.
Paul accuses Peter of “dissimulation” in this matter. This is a heavy charge, and its meaning has been somewhat questioned. Some suppose that Peter took alarm immediately on the arrival of the persons from Jerusalem, whose character and temper must have been known to him, and immediately withdrew from the society of the Gentile converts, and attempted to conceal the fact of his previously liberal intercourse with them. It seems more likely, however, that by the use of this word, Paul shows his knowledge of the fact that, in proceeding as Peter did, he acted from views of expediency, in opposition to his real convictions, which remained unchanged; while his conduct could not but had the Jews to think that his views, and those of Paul, were different, and must have led the Gentiles to conclude that he had altered his opinions.
So, in speaking of Peter, and of Barnabas after he had been led astray by Peter’s example, he says—“I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel.” By this we should judge him to mean, that they walked not straight onward in the path of principle and duty, but leaned aside to natural prejudices and compromising expedients, thereby throwing doubt and obscurity on the true gospel, that men are saved entirely “by faith,” through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. This was a point on which Paul was peculiarly sensitive; in which he saw his way clearly, and which he would not allow to be compromised. It was, therefore, doubtless, the perception of this danger which led him to the step he presently took.