Galatians 2:11-13

Maintained in Conflict with Peter at Antioch. Galatians 2:11-21

a)

The hypocritical conduct of Peter and the remainder of Jewish Christians. Galatians 2:11-13

TEXT 2:11-13

(11) But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. (12) For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. (13) And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.

PARAPHRASE 2:11-13

11 Moreover, to shew that as an apostle Peter is not superior to me, I inform you, that when he came to Antioch after the council, I opposed him personally in the presence of the church, because in this very affair of the Gentiles, he was blamable.
12 For before certain persons zealous of the law came from James, he used to eat with the converted Gentiles in Antioch. But when they arrived, he withdrew, and separated himself from these, as if it had been a sin to eat with them. But the true reason was, his being afraid of the converted Jews.
13 And the other Jews also hypocrized with him, abstaining from the tables of the Gentiles. So that even Barnabas, who with me had preached salvation to the Gentiles without the works of the law, was carried away with them by their hypocrisy.

COMMENT 2:11

But when Cephas came to Antioch

1.

McGarvey feels this event probably was soon after the Jerusalem Conference.

2.

Observe that Peter is not named with Barsabbas and Silas who returned to Antioch from Jerusalem following the conference. Acts 15:22

I resisted him to the face

1.

Paul spoke to his facenot behind his back, or in Peter's absence.

2.

Resistance actually was upholding the truth.

because he stood condemned

1.

Notice it was Peter's conductan old prejudice showing forth.

2.

This does not affect his revelation as inspiration.

a.

These men who were given the keys of the kingdom were not given perfection.

b.

They spoke a divine message but in normal life their prejudice entered into their application of it.

COMMENT 2:12

Before that certain came from James he ate with the Gentiles

1.

This was an unlawful act for the law enthusiasts. Cf. Samaritan womanJohn 4:9 no dealing.

2.

Peter's great vision (Acts 10:11-16) had some affect on him.

a.

He had defended his position earlier, when the Jews contended with him when he returned to Jerusalem from the house of Cornelius. Acts 11:1-30

b.

Now Paul records that in Antioch he again ate with Gentiles.

c.

Peter was courageous when there was nothing to fear.

when some came from James he drew back and separated

1.

This may represent then what he really believed.

a.

He knew how they felt and since he had to deal more with them than the Christians at Antioch, he chose to be at peace with them.

b.

This type of character Peter demonstrated in earlier life.

2.

It would require some courage however to give up his position with the Gentiles.

3.

Did James send them? Was he fearing James?

a.

It is not likely if James remained true to his conviction at Jerusalem.

1)

Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turned to God. Acts 15:19

2)

Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment. Acts 15:24

b.

The context somewhat infers that James is to blame.

1)

If Peter could change, so could James.

2)

The Pulpit Commentary says this is not inconsistent, for James could speak Acts 15:19and still feel that the obligation of Jewish believers remained the same.

WORD STUDY 2:12

When Peter drew back (hupostellohoo poh STELL oh) he was shrinking back from something repulsive, as in fear or disgust.

To separate (aphorizoah foh RIDZ oh) is to completely cut off. The word carries the idea of excommunication, as in Luke 6:22, where Jesus said, Happy are you when men shall hate you and reject you. How appalling that such strong rejection should be committed by Peter against fellow Christians!

COMMENT 2:13

The rest of the Jews dissembled

1.

That is, the Jewish Christians began likewise breaking fellowship.

2.

They acted as sheep without a shepherd.

even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation

1.

Dissimulationto dissemblemeans to feign, to make pretense of.

2.

These men were supposed to be Christians and now they avoid the Gentiles at dinner. Paul says it is a pretense.

a.

Dissimulation can be translated hypocrisy.

b.

To possess a truth and profess it in life are two different matters.

WORD STUDY 2:13

When the rest of the Jews dissembled (sunhupokrinomaisoon hoop oh KRIN oh my) they were literally acting the hypocrite with Peter. The hypocrite was originally the play-actor on the Greek stage. Wearing the large mask of comedy or tragedy, his outward appearance was not the same as his inner nature. With the aid of such masks, one actor might even play several different roles in the same drama.

Christians must never be guilty of putting on different faces for different occasions.

STUDY QUESTIONS 2:11-13

184.

Who is Cephas?

185.

Where did he travel?

186.

When did he make the trip?

187.

What is meant by resisted?

188.

How could an inspired apostle be wrong?

189.

Do preachers today preach truth more strongly than they are able to live it?

190.

What inconsistency did Peter show?

191.

Had not Paul learned how to act toward Gentiles, according to Acts 10:1-48?

192.

Why would the presence of James make a difference?

193.

Was James a superior to Peter?

194.

What is meant by drew back and separated?

195.

Was James at fault or inconsistent?

196.

What is meant by dissembled?

197.

Who did it?

198.

Was this a break in fellowship?

199.

Is dissimulation hypocrisy?

200.

Would it be inconsistent if we were present in a mixed foreign and colored group in a similar situation, if we had friends who were very strong in drawing color and social distinctions?