Galatians 2:11-12

I withstood him to the face.

Paul and Peter

I. Character is growth. The most zealous is not always the most steadfast. Fires slumber within which circumstances may fan into a terrible flame. We bring our evil tendencies with us into the Kingdom of God to be gradually curbed, restrained, overcome by higher and Divine tendencies. Let every man keep sentinel over himself; let him beware of old sins; let him guard his soul by prayer against attacks on his weak points; let him cast aside every weight if he would run the true race, whose goal is perfection.

II. Fear of man deteriorates the character. How many barter their birthright for the world’s empty applause! A little courage would save them a world of shame; a decisive step or a bold word would put to silence their adversaries; but they dare not make a stand, and so their independence is lost and their character lowered.

III. Observe the influence of character on others. Peter did not sin alone. The other Jews dissembled, and even Barnabas was led away. So it is always. Evil companionships and examples corrupt good characters.

IV. Bear in mind the supreme necessity of honesty. The truth must at all hazards be defended, faithfully, courteously, lovingly.

V. Paul’s appeal was successful. Truth always prevails in the end. A little firmness at the right time, and in the right way, may save a brother’s soul.

VI. This was no mere personal dispute, but involved vital issues. The antagenism was between law on the one hand and grace on the other. (S. Pearson, M. A.)

Paul rebukes Peter

One of the most remarkable events in sacred history. Tradition tells us St. Paul was a man of small stature, bearing the marked features of the Jew, yet not without some of the finer lines indicative of Greek thought. His head bald, his beard long and thin; a bright gray eye, overhung by somewhat contracted eyebrows; whilst a cheerful and winning expression of countenance invited the approach and inspired the confidence of strangers. St. Peter is represented as a man of larger form and stronger build, with dark eye, pale and sallow complexion, and short hair curled black and thick round his temples. At the meeting here mentioned Judaism and Christianity were brought face to face. In Galatians 2:14 we have the case of Gospel versus Law.

I. The conduct of St. Peter on this occasion may be regarded as--

1. An example of temptation arising from the fear of man. Peter was by nature timid; prompt to act, yet apt to vacillate; afraid of opposition.

2. An instance of an apostle’s departure from the straight path of gospel truth, and of the ease with which such departure may take place. No divergence from God’s truth, however slight, is unimportant. We never know what (to all appearance) the slightest error may result in. Our only safety lies in holding fast the whole truth.

3. Not inconsistent with his integrity as a Christian, or with his inspiration as a writer. His writings were under the direction of the Holy Spirit. He nobly redeemed this error by a faithful and consistent after-life.

II. The conduct of St. Paul was--

1. An example of moral courage in administering reproof. No easy thing, at any time, to rebuke a friend. It is painful to oppose one whom we love, or whose good opinion we value.

2. A noble vindication of gospel truth. (Emilius Bayley, B. D.)

Peter’s inconsistent conduct

The conduct of Peter is not easy to understand. Already, at the council or concordat of the apostles, he had agreed to impose no burdens on the Gentile Christians; and, at a much earlier period in the history of the apostles, he had not only been charged with going in unto men uncircumcised and eating with them, but had taught others that they were to “call nothing common or unclean.” And now, not of his own free will, but under the influence of certain who came from Jerusalem, from a fear of the very same charge, “Thou wentest in unto men uncircumcised and eatest with them,” he held back, and seemed to view his Christian brethren with the feelings with which he would have regarded men who sat at meat in an idol’s temple. It is remarkable, and may be considered as a proof of the truth of the history, that this conduct, however unintelligible, is in keeping with Peter’s character. We recognize in it the lineaments of him who confessed Christ first, and first denied Him; who began by refusing that Christ should wash his feet, and then said, “Not my feet only, but my hands and my head;” who cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest when they came to take Jesus, and then forsook Him and fled. Boldness and timidity--first boldness, then timidity--were the characteristics of his nature. It was natural for such a one, though no longer strictly a Jew himself, to desire that others should conform to the prejudices of Jews; such conduct agreed with the bent of his own mind, though he formally disowned it. There is, we may observe, in many men a sort of tenderness to what they once were themselves; as there is another class of men who learn a lesson, but only to apply it under given circumstances. Something of this kind there may have been in St. Peter; a narrowness of perception, or secret sympathy with the Judaizing converts, which prevented his seeing the wider truth which presented itself to St. Paul. At any rate, his was a disposition on which ancient habits and feelings were ever liable to return; whose heart could scarcely avoid lingering around the weak and beggarly elements of the law; on whom in age the lessons of youth were too prone to come back, “carrying him whither he would not.” The charge which St. Paul brings against him was, inconsistency with himself; he was half a Gentile, and wanted to make the Gentiles altogether Jews. (B. Jowett, M. A.)

Force of example

What a constraining power there is in the example of eminent persons. He is said to compel, in Scripture, not only who doth violently force, but who, being of authority, doth provoke by his example. (Burkitt.)

The errors of those that do rule become rulers of error. Men sin through a kind of authority, through the sins of those who are in authority. (Burkitt.)

Open reproof for open sin

Such as sin openly must be reproved openly. No bands of friendship must keep the ministers of God from reproving sin. A notorious fault must be reproved with much boldness and resolution. If such as are eminent in the Church fall, they fall not alone; many fall with them.

Protestant popery

How many rejoice at Paul’s defence of the liberty of the gospel against Peter’s weakness, who themselves will not receive rebuke as Peter did--nay, are very popes at heart. For there are popes in pews as well as in pulpits, besides the pope who openly claims to be such; Christian liberty suffers from them all. (M. B. Riddle, D. D.)

False doctrine

It is a good and a pleasant thing for brethren to dwell together in unity. But in a world like this such enjoyment cannot be universal or permanent. No Christian vigilance can prevent differences of opinion. They existed even among the apostles, and even upon fundamental truths. We may learn from this fact a twofold lesson.

1. When differences affect only the circumstantials of religion, however interesting, and in their place important, those matters which are in themselves of human origin and rest on human authority may be, the differences respecting them are calculated to teach us a lesson of charity (Romans 14:5).

2. When they extend to the fundamental portions of revealed truth, they are equally calculated to teach us a lesson of fidelity (Galatians 1:8). The matter to which the text refers, considered in itself, might have been enumerated among those questions which teach charity; but, considered in its bearing upon the gospel, considered in the aspect which it gave to the gospel among the Gentiles, it compromised the freeness of the gospel, and marred the simplicity of God’s message in Christ. And therefore St. Paul withstood the error of St. Peter “to the face, because he was to be blamed.” Barnabas was carried away also with the dissimulation. St. Paul was left alone. It was a critical moment for the primitive Church. Who can estimate the amount of the disaster that would have followed had St. Paul fallen as St. Peter fell? Who can estimate the damage which would have been sustained had the gospel, from the very outset, been presented in a corrupt form? How could we now have traced its purity had St. Paul sunk with St. Peter? As far as man can judge, the world would then never have had the gospel in its simplicity with the clear authority of Scriptural truth. But, through the mercy and grace of God, St. Paul stood fast. (H. McNeile, D. D.)

Good men are not perfect men

A gentleman of the Perfectionist school of thought called to see an old Christian of his neighbourhood, and began enlarging upon that interesting topic. “Can you point to a single perfect man or woman in the Bible?” inquired the aged saint. “Yes,” readily answered the other; “turn to Luke 1:6, you will there read of two--Elizabeth and Zacharias walked ‘in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless.’” “Then you consider yourself a believer like Zacharias?” “Certainly I do,” said the visitor. “Ah,” replied the old man, “I thought you might be; and we read a few verses further on that he was struck dumb for his unbelief.” (Nye.)

Robert Hall’s temper

It is said that in the earlier part of Robert Hall’s ministry, he was impetuous and sometimes overbearing in argument; but if he lost his temper he was deeply humbled, and would often acknowledge himself to blame. On one of these occasions, when a discussion had become warm, and he had evinced unusual agitation, he suddenly closed the debate, quitted his seat, and, retiring to a remote part of the room, was overheard to ejaculate, with deep feeling, “Lamb of God, Lamb of God, calm my perturbed spirit!”

The fear of man illustrated

Burgomeister Guericke constructed a gigantic barometer with a tube thirty feet in height, part of which projected above the roof of his house at Magdeburg. The index was the figure of a man, who, in fair weather, was seen standing full size above the roof; but, when a storm was brewing, he cautiously withdrew for security and shelter. Antitype of religionists and politicians I When the sun shines brightly, and the breezes scarcely breathe across the landscape, how erect and bold they look! But let the clouds gather, and the thunders mutter, and what a drawing-in of diminished heads! O rare, satirical Burgomeister! you must have had an alderman’s experience. (Dr. W. F. Warren.)

Brotherly reproof

I. What is reproof.

1. An act of charity and mercy, not of pride and vain-glory (2 Thessalonians 3:15; James 3:17.

2. Using fit discourse, not chastisement, and, in general, from God’s Word (Colossians 3:16.

3. Having as its end not our brother’s shame, but his reclamation from sin to duty (Galatians 6:1).

II. The kind of reproof it is our duty to give.

1. Authoritative. By way of office (2 Timothy 4:2).

2. In the way of general duty, which lieth on all men (1 Thessalonians 5:14).

III. The manner in which to discharge this duty.

1. Faithfully (Titus 1:13).

2. With lenity and Christian meekness (Galatians 6:1).

3. Prudently. Well weighing all the circumstances of person, time, place, occasion, provocation, that all things may be proportioned to the design (Proverbs 25:12).

IV. The arguments which enforce this duty.

1. The law of nature, which teaches us to love our neighbour.

2. The law of God (Proverbs 25:8; Matthew 18:15; 1Th 3:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; Jude 1:22).

3. Giving reproof is commended (Proverbs 24:25; James 5:19), and taking reproof (Proverbs 13:18; Proverbs 15:31; Ecclesiastes 7:5).

4. The maintenance of society and the improvements of human relations depend upon it.

V. When and to what this duty binds.

1. Not unless the fault is certainly known; not, therefore, on mere suspicion (1 Corinthians 13:5), uncertain hearsay (Isaiah 11:3), flying reports, or slander.

2. Not if our brother has repented.

3. Not if a good result is unlikely, and a bad result probable (Matthew 7:6).

In conclusion:

1. If we are to reprove others, let us take care that we are blameless (Matthew 6:3; Romans 3:21).

2. If others are bound to reprove, we are bound to take reproof. (T. Manton.)

The end of St. Peter’s error

Though St. Paul’s narrative stops short of the last scene in this drama, it would not be rash to conclude that it ended as that other had ended, that the revulsion of feeling was as sudden and complete, and that again he went out and wept bitterly, having denied his Lord in the person of these Gentile converts. (Bishop Lightfoot.)

Differences among the apostles

Nothing can be more false and delusive than to imagine that the first teachers were men whose harmony of opinion and action was complete, who had neither debate, difference, or quarrel. They were not unconscious mouthpieces of a supernatural inspiration, automata of some uncontrollable enthusiasm, unanimous machines, but men of like passions with ourselves, men with characters, impulses, affections, fears, dislikes--men human in the mistakes they made and in the truths they embraced and enunciated. It is sheer superstition to treat them as more than men, as other than men, however highly we may esteem them and their work. If we make them unreal and transcendental personages we do them a great injustice, and ourselves a certain mischief, because all free inquiry into their motives and feelings is suspected as a challenge of their authority, and every other form of commentary becomes mere verbiage around a foregone conclusion. They ace not stars fixed round the great central Light, and differing only in glory and goodness from Him who is the centre of their system; but they have what light they possess from reflection, and feel themselves immeasurably distant from the Power which illumines them. (Paul of Tarsus.)

The dissension a witness to the truth of the Bible

The Bible is of great worth for its natural, fresh, and honest expressions of human thought and feeling. The faith, hope, love, reverence, wonder; the doubts, sorrows, fears, temptations, and sins of the writers are recorded for our instruction, as well as the Divine doctrine they teach. In this spiritual portrait gallery we behold the work of truthful artists. No vanity, no pride, no desire to deceive, prevented them from pourtraying themselves just as they appeared. We value the Scriptures because their truths make us wise unto salvation; but we value them also as a record of what the good and wise thought and felt during their life-struggle on this earth. The Bible is not only a revelation of God, but also a revelation of man--the most Divine and the most human book ever written. (Thomas Jones.)

Blemishes in Christians

There are MSS. which are called palimpsests--MSS, written over again. The original inscription, which was fair and full of Divine wisdom, has been defaced, and in its place may now be seen letters and words and sentences in contrast to what was contained before. And so the character of men--these great men, men born of the Spirit--over their better natures you may see scratched in ugly scrawls, obvious imperfections and failures. But, thank God, Divine grace, through discipline of various kinds, rubs out the evil and brings back the good, and causes the soul at last to reveal again most distinctly what had been only dimmed and not destroyed, even as there has been discovered a method by which the palimpsests can be made to exhibit once more what seemed for ever spoiled. (J. Stoughton, D. D.)

Truth-telling: an act of friendship

There cannot more worthy improvement of friendship than in a fervent opposition to the sins of those whom we love. (Bishop Hall.)

The truth-tellers’ reward

Years after this encounter Peter took his revenge. Having to write to the strangers scattered through “Galatia,” who through a celebrated Epistle knew of his humiliation, what does he do? Vindicate himself? State the other side? No; he calls his reprover a brother beloved, and testifies that in all his Epistles he wrote according to the wisdom given him of God.

The weakness and dissimulation of Peter

The act of which he was guilty was dissimulation; it was not what he believed to be right, but an expediency adopted in a moment of weakness. It is described--

I. As a violation of his convictions. He had commenced upon equal terms with Gentile believers, and he bad done this according to the express will of God revealed to him (Acts 10:28). These convictions had been further deepened by what had taken place in Jerusalem during Paul’s visit to that city.

II. This dissimulation was prompted by a very unworthy motive. Peter feared them which were of the circumcision. Many have made shipwreck of faith upon this same rock. How often have men been ashamed to confess Christ, or to acknowledge their connection with His people for fear of man.

III. This dissimulation was an evil example, soon copied by others--“And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.” Peter’s sin was followed by the sin of others. One of the greatest mysteries of our life is that so much of our happiness or misery appears to depend upon others. “As it sometimes happens on the snow slopes of the Alps, that one man’s slip will involve the overthrow and destruction of all his fellow-travellers, so is it with us in the moral and spiritual life. Peter drags Barnabas and the rest of the Jews with him; and in our day men too often exercise the same fatal spell on those within the region of their influence.” Lessons:

1. Honesty of belief, purpose, and work should be one of the chief laws of Christian life. This should apply to every kind of secular business, and to religion.

“This above all; to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day.

Thou canst not then be false to any man.”

2. God can preserve the truth by the few as well as by the many. Whatever may be the character of human conduct, God does not allow his purpose to fail. At Antioch Paul alone was faithful (of the Jewish believers), but the truth triumphed notwithstanding. (Richard Nicholls.)

A fearless spirit in rebuking evil strikes us with admiration

When Frederick the First, the half-mad king of Prussia, was so enraged against his son that he announced his intention of condemning him to death, even though the Emperor remonstrated, in his fury exclaiming--“Then I will hold my own court on him at Konigsberg, which is outside of the Empire, where no one can control me!” But a fearless courtier spoke out--“Only God, your majesty, will be over you there to call you to task for shedding your son’s blood!” (Dr. Hardman.)

The two contentions

Now, before we go farther, we may learn the following lessons from this personal contention between Paul and Peter: In the first place, before we withstand a brother, let us be quite sure that he is to be blamed, and that the occasion warrants our protest. Paul would not have cared to interfere, with Peter in any trivial matter; nor would he have felt constrained to move in the ease but for the handle which would be made of his peculiar vacillation just at that time. No one had a fuller comprehension of what Christian liberty involved than had Paul; and no one was more jealous of its infringement. If, therefore, he had not seen that the fundamental principle of the gospel was at stake, he would not have said a word. The thing which Peter had done was in itself indifferent; but by doing it just then, at the appearance of the Judaizers, he had compromised that truth which was dearer to Paul than friendship, or even than life, and therefore he could not be silent. Now, let us learn from this example to withstand a brother only when we are thus constrained to do so by our allegiance to the truth of the gospel. If in any respect we cannot approve his conduct, while yet it may be explained in perfect harmony with his loyalty to Christ, let us give him the benefit of the explanation, and be silent. But if his procedure is such as seriously to compromise the purity of the Church or the truth of the gospel, then let us withstand him. Nothing is more contemptible than to be always putting ourselves on the opposition benches; objecting to everything that is proposed by some particular brother, and going to a church meeting with the motive of the Scotchman for appearing in the debating society--“jist to contradic a wee.” But on the other hand, nothing ought to be dearer to a Christian than “the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which is committed to his trust.” Again, we may learn not to be deterred from opposing wrong by the position of him who has committed it. Peter was an apostle. He was, in fact, one of the greatest pillars of the early Church; but Paul was not prevented by any such considerations as these from protesting against his injudicious and unseemly vacillation. On the contrary, the very prominence of Peter made it all the more important that his inconsistency should be promptly and publicly dealt with. Had he been an ordinary member of the Church, moving only in private circles, Paul might have been disposed to pass his conduct by with a mild remonstrance. It was not, therefore, because he loved Peter less, but because he loved the truth more, that he uttered this glowing and uncompromising admonition. But the same principles hold still; error or evil is dangerous in any man, but it is far more so in a leader of the people or a minister of the gospel than in others. Great eminence may command our respect, but the truth is before all things else; and nothing whatever should be allowed by us to excuse treason to that. Once more we may learn from Paul’s conduct here that when we withstand a brother, it should be to his face. He did not go hither and thither among the elders, speaking against Peter and complaining of his course, while at the same time he kept unbroken silence concerning it to Peter himself. Let us say nothing in his absence that we would not utter in his presence; and if we have not the courage to speak to him, let us at least have the grace to be silent about him. From the conduct of Peter here, however, we may learn the no less valuable lesson that when we are thus withstood we should take it meekly, and, if we are in the wrong, should frankly own our error, and retrace our steps as rapidly as possible. We cannot doubt, therefore, that he accepted Paul’s rebuke in the spirit of meekness. Now in all this there was a magnanimity which is worthy of all praise. So far as appears, he did not become excited, and exclaim against Paul for presuming to think that he could be wrong, but he did a more difficult and a more manly thing: he acknowledged his fault. Now here was a great triumph of grace. It may seem a paradox to say it; but there are few things which test a man’s real Christianity more than reproof for that which is actually blameworthy. It is comparatively easy to guard against giving offence; but it is exceeding hard to keep from taking offence in such circumstances, and to say with the Psalmist, “Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head.” We all assent to Solomon’s proverb, “Open rebuke is better than secret love.” We cry out against the modern dogma of papal infallibility, but we have all too much belief in that of our own infallibility; for our tempers are roused, and our hearts are estranged by any exposure of our error or inconsistency. How many personal alienations and ecclesiastical schisms might have been prevented, if there had been on the one side the honest frankness of Paul, and on the other the manly meekness of Peter, as these come out in this transaction! If I had my choice, I would rather see a controversy spring up in a Church about some great central doctrine than about some question of paltry detail of arrangement or of pitiful personality; for there would be less likelihood in the one case than in the other of an angry and acrimonious debate. “Little sticks kindle great fires.” The flame that would die out before it could set fire to a log will easily ignite a chip, and that may have strength enough to kindle a faggot that will at length set the log in a blaze. Take care, therefore, especially in little things, lest temper should explode, and make a painful separation between you and your friend. Admirably has the poet said:

“Alas! how light a cause may move

Dissension between those that love.”

(W. M. Taylor, D. D.)

Grace not suddenly destructive of the old nature

The grace of God, which raises men’s hearts by degrees into conformity with the Divine image, does not suddenly destroy the old nature. St. Peter is still the same impulsive man who could now confess the Christ, and now, when troubles came, deny Him; who could follow Him bravely into danger, yet be overcome by the gossiping remark of a girl that met him by chance. We must not try this ease by the standard of Anglo-Saxon consistency. We sometimes perhaps run the risk of purchasing too dearly the favourite virtue, at the price of zeal and ardour. We are not naturally indulgent towards that impulsive nature which the great apostle, more Jewish in this than the Jews, derived from his race. Anxious to please, and to be in sympathy with those about him, he rejoiced at first in the Gentile freedom, until those came about him who were full of prejudice for their venerable law, its severe conditions of communion, its austere separation. Let us neither praise nor blame--let us only say grace has not yet wrought her perfect work in this apostle’s heart. Nor has the other great apostle yet learned all that the school of grace can teach him. Face to face, before the whole Church, he rebukes and humbles a brother whom Christ had honoured, who had laboured much, and turned many from darkness to light. He quotes it as a proof of his independence amongst the apostles, not without complacency. All this is consistent with this bold and resolute nature, which marched straight to its objects, and refused to swerve either out of respect of persons or out of fear. His steadfast resolution, that Christ should be all in all, came from above; his manner of compassing it bears clear marks of his old nature. That blessed change under the power of grace can be perhaps more fully studied in St. Paul’s career than anywhere else in the Church history. The strong, loving, fierce, harsh nature--you see the faults transformed to virtues, the angles rounded off, the strong will made obedient to the bit and bridle of love; and yet it is the same man still. You recognize the old features of the portrait, but it is transfigured by preternatural light. Again we will not praise or blame; we will rather recognize the power of the mighty Spirit of God which could use for His purposes the timid impulse of one man and the impatient zeal of another, for building up the house of God; and at the same time could take in hand the timid and the impatient natures alike, and give courage to the one and softening to the other, thus building at one time the great house of God and carving delicately each living stone of which the house is compacted. It is very common for us to look up out of our welter of troubles, our sects, and schisms, and disputations, and to see far back in the first ages nothing but peace; a united Church, offering its harmonious, universal praise; a well-drilled army, marching in obedience to a single will, a code of faith which always, everywhere, all the faithful heard, and, without questioning, believed. But, as the student draws near, the object grows more distinct, the mists disperse, the shadows separate and fall into their places; and the rose-flush of the dawn ceases to conceal the true colours of that primaeval region. Then we come to see something very different from our preconceptions, and learn--what is indeed gladness to learn--that upon the whole, in the old time as in the new, the Holy Spirit sent of the Lord has wrought in the Church in the same manner. He was a Spirit of light and life and comfort to the souls of men; but then, as now, the men were enlightened, not transformed. And the glory of God’s great work lay in this--not that the powers, wishes, and passions of the actors were petrified into a lifeless uniformity, and the superseding life from heaven took their place; but rather that, using as His instruments men so weak and perverse, He built with them the Church of God. To me, I do confess, it is a comfort to know that the Church in the first age grew by the same principles as it grows by in the nineteenth; that the very divisions amongst us have their counterparts in the age of the apostles, and that our disputes, like them, may be but permitted struggles and aberrations of us who are acting out God’s great commands, and that all the while He is making perfect the circle of His purpose and accomplishing His kingdom. The Church has grown, as all things seem to grow, by the life within her striving to perfect itself amidst opposing forces. So grows the acorn, pushing its weak shoot through hard ground, and its strength and dignity are not less that once the swinish jaws narrowly missed devouring the heart, and the swinish foot did actually trample it into the clay. So grew the liberties of the English people: are they less dear to us because they have been threatened, and at times, eclipsed in the past? So grow the mind and spirit of a man, passing through trials and efforts, even through falls, to the ripeness of a resolute, tolerant, patient, helpful age. So grew the Church of Christ; and her life is not less real, less secure, if she has passed sometimes through fears and fightings, and the deep waters of the proud have seemed to go even over her life. At one time Athanasius has had to stand against a world; at another, a Hildebrand imperils the Church by making it the supreme kingdom amongst the earthly kingdoms. Worldly motives are said to have tainted the Reformation of religion in this country: and it is true. So much the greater is our reason for blessing God: that the sweet honeycomb has come from the lion’s carcase; that amidst the strife and selfishness of kings, and the ignorance of peoples, the truth passed safely. So even now the Church is growing, and God dwelling in her gives the increase. We seem in deadly peril. There is unbelief on one side, and on the other that deadening system which would hand over the conscience to the priest, and the priest to a mediaeval theology, hostile to knowledge and incapable of change. “The waves of the sea are mighty and rage horribly, but yet the Lord that dwelleth on high is mightier.” Yet there is one more lesson which the study of the past might bring us. By the vehemence of past disputes--nay, by the bitter hatred that they have brought in, one might think that men had lost faith in the power of the Holy Ghost to keep safe the ark of God upon the stormy waters. To “withstand to the face” has been the common remedy for emergencies. It may be permitted us reverently to doubt whether the pulse of Divine life in the Church has been hastened by one beat by the violence of the zealous, who have thought well to be angry for the cause of God. Through strife, but not by strife, the Church has passed upon her way. Struggle and conflict, and even partial failure, should not convince us that God has left us: they are the heritage of the Church from the beginning. (Archbishop Thomson.)

Paul’s rebuke of Peter was

I. Just--because he was guilty of dissimulation--misled others--acted in opposition to the spirit and doctrine of Christ (verses 11-14).

II. Fearless.

without respect of Peter’s age and position--without fear of others; the offence was public, therefore the rebuke was administered before all (verse 14); otherwise our Lord’s rule is imperative (Matthew 18:15).

III. Pointed--“thou,” a transgressor of thine own law--enlightened and accepted in Christ (verses 14, 15).

IV. Faithful--Paul indicates the greatness of the offence as a violation of Christian uprightness (verse 14)--of fidelity to Christ, inasmuch as it was a practical denial of Him and made Him the minister of sin (verses 17, 18)--of Christian doctrine (verses 19, 20)--of God’s grace (verse 21). (J. Lyth.)

Peter at Antioch

I. His fault--dissimulation--reprehensible in any, much more in the apostle Peter (Acts 10:28).

II. The occasion of it--fear of man--which ensnares even the best.

III. The effect of it--it misled others--even Barnabas.

IV. Its gravity--it was dishonest--unchristian.

V. Its reproof--dictated by love to Christ--manly and open. (J. Lyth.)