PETER CAME TO Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”
Original Meaning
THE FINAL EVENT Paul musters for his case is one of the strongest confrontations presented in the Bible: the confrontation of Peter by Paul in Antioch. Paul has demonstrated that he received his gospel independently of human teaching (1:13–17), of the major Judean churches (1:18–24), and of the Jerusalem “pillars” (2:1–10). He now seeks to show that yet one more incident in his relationship with the leaders from Jerusalem reveals both his independence and the truthfulness of his gospel. That incident concerns Peter, the first apostle (Matt. 10:2). In its essentials, the event reveals a Peter who, in the normal course of affairs, was willing to shed the identifying markers of Judaism (food and table restrictions), perhaps even circumcision and Sabbath observance, to enjoy a new-found fellowship with Gentile Christians, but who also abandoned such a stance when “certain men came from James” (2:12). The sharing of a common meal was a visible and socially powerful symbol of the new slogan Paul was teaching his young churches: “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (3:28).1 But this symbol was publicly damaged by Peter’s behavior.
Paul finds this behavioral change not only “hypocritical” (in the sense of contradictory) but also theologically wrong and dangerous. This latter point is important: Paul was more than concerned with the “contradictory behavior” of Peter. True, he changed his color, like a chameleon, but changing colors may be necessary at times (see 1 Cor. 9:19–23). But Paul sees something more in Peter’s behavior: he sees theological danger. It is proper, when with Jews, to live like a Jew in order to reach such people. But, when with Gentiles, living like a Jew is wrong. Furthermore, making Gentiles live like Jews (especially when that very person has himself lived like a Gentile) is abominable behavior. Peter was demonstrating a different gospel by his reversed behavior: a gospel that mixed conversion to Christ with conversion to nationalistic Judaism. That is why Paul needed to confront Peter.
The confrontation (v. 11) Verses 11 and 14 begin and end this section with the same content (in rhetorical terms, this style is called an “inclusio”). The first statement (v. 11) is a report of the confrontation, while the second statement (v. 14) is a direct quotation of the charge of the confrontation. Verses 12 and 13 explain what Paul means by “he [Peter] was in the wrong” (v. 11).
It is not completely clear when Peter “came to Antioch,” but Acts 12:17 is as much evidence as we have. Luke tells us there that after Peter’s miraculous deliverance from prison, he “left for another place.” He knew he had to vacate Jerusalem temporarily because of the persecution (cf. 12:18–19). If we remember the narrative line of Acts properly, we will recall that Paul and Barnabas were in Jerusalem at this time delivering relief for the poor (11:30; 12:25). Following this, Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, only to be sent out for the first missionary journey (12:25–13:3). It is as likely as anything else that Peter departed from Jerusalem not long after he had given Paul the “right hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9). It seems likely that Paul and Barnabas then arrived in Antioch, some time elapsed, the “men from James” arrived, and the behavior of Peter became known to Paul. Verse 11 sounds like Paul was in Antioch when the behavior of Peter occurred, though we cannot be certain about the details.
What we do know from Paul is that he “opposed him [Peter] to his face” (2:11). This expression describes a public rebuke (because, I suppose, it was a public problem), and “because he was in the wrong” is a severe comment. Some commentators now agree that Paul was saying more than “you are wrong”; Paul was saying “you stand condemned by God.”2 As I said above, Paul is arguing more than that Peter was simply wrong or inconsistent; Peter was had actually perverted the gospel itself with his behavior. Thus the meaning of “because he was wrong” is severe: that is, “because he stood condemned before God.”3 Whenever it occurred, Paul publicly rebuked Peter for his hypocritical behavior because what he was doing was clearly contrary to God’s will, that is, contrary to life through Christ and in the Spirit.
The explanation (vv. 12–13) Paul now pauses to explain precisely what Peter had done (and even why). Peter, in his life in the Diaspora, had become accustomed to eating with Gentiles, significant progress since the days prior to a divine revelation (Acts 10–11). At the time of that revelation, Peter had said, “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean” (10:14), implying that he has also perhaps never eaten with people who could make food unclean. It is important to remember that Jewish food laws functioned to separate Jews from Gentiles and to give them a sacred identity.
……………………
Note on Jewish Food Laws. To understand this text aright it is important to know what Jews thought about certain foods.4 Basically, the Bible (Lev. 11; Deut. 14) prohibits the consumption of (1) all four-footed animals except sheep, goats, cattle, and a few kinds of deer,5 the most notable prohibition being pork; (2) shellfish and molluscs;6 (3) birds of prey;7 (4) most insects (except locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers);8 (5) swarming land creatures (like lizards, crocodiles, chameleons, and weasels);9 and (6) dead animals (which should be obvious). Furthermore, for food that was permissible there was a further restriction: no food could be consumed that had either fat or blood (Lev. 3:17). In the passage of history, Jews added other prohibitions, like Gentile meat and wine (cf. Dan. 1:12–16), because both could have been contaminated through idolatry. One other prohibition was the eating of food that was not properly tithed, though Pharisees debated this point quite heatedly. These rules were not rules governing only the behavior of priests; they were rules for all of Israel. While there were variations, it does appear that most Jews kept most of these laws: it was too easy for their neighbors to “rat on” them, and most Jews wanted to maintain good standing in the community. But more importantly, most Jews wanted to live before God in obedience. Sanders, speaking of the value of food laws for the Jews, infers: “the food laws stood out, along with the observance of the sabbath, as being a central and defining aspect of Judaism.”10
When they did become unclean as a result of contact with one of these forbidden foods, the observant Jew did what the Bible said: he washed himself and waited until evening (Lev. 11:24–28). These rules seemed to vary only a little in the Diaspora, differing no doubt according to availability and the animal’s perception in that part of the world. Thus, the precise animals listed in Leviticus 11:4–8 and Deuteronomy 14:4–5 were supplemented at times with the water buffalo and the giraffe. Gentile oil was also apparently prohibited in certain locations.11
It should also be said that there were variations among Jews about what constituted permissible food. Some Jews (like the Pharisees) were more radical in their applications of biblical laws than others and extended such laws to degrees that others thought were fanatical. It goes without saying that such a radicalism would have been found more often in Palestine than in the Diaspora. I am persuaded that the party that came from Jerusalem was more along the line of the radicals than along the line of the “strict, but accommodating” group. Some Jews would eat no food that came from Gentiles, but Diaspora Jews were forced to do this; some radicals, therefore, could have seen almost all food in the Diaspora as unclean (but I know of no evidence that suggests this); at any rate, some would have seen lots of danger in the food laws in the Diaspora. What we do find is that Jews frequently had to agitate in their Diaspora communities in order to acquire “pure food” because much of it had been previously offered to idols.
……………………
What, then, was Peter doing in Antioch?12 My guess is one of five things: (1) he was eating food that had not been checked regarding its religious state (most red meats in a Diaspora market had already been offered to idols), that is, eating Gentile meat and drinking Gentile wine; (2) he was eating foods that were expressly prohibited in Leviticus or Deuteronomy; (3) less likely, he was eating meat that still contained blood or fat because it had not been properly slaughtered; (4) he was eating food that had not been properly tithed; (5) it is indeed possible that he was simply eating too frequently with Gentiles and the real issue was not what he was eating but with whom he was eating.13 While we may never know—and there may have been several factors at work—it is important for us to try to understand what was going on (if not just so we can find analogies in our world).
My first guess is that the issue was the second one: Peter was probably eating “baby back” barbecued spare ribs or shrimp scampi, and the more conservative Jews took issue with his cavalier violation of the law—remember that this was the issue for Peter in Acts 10–11. It was later clear that unintentional violation of food laws was acceptable; intentional and flagrant violation was unacceptable. But, I grant, it is hard to imagine Jews, many of whom who had become Christians, sitting down for pork meals or eating things expressly prohibited in the Bible. However, some have argued that Peter was simply eating things that would have been unacceptable only to the radical wing, which had a much stricter sense of food laws. Thus, he may have been eating food that (1) had been sacrificed to idols, or (2) that had been put to death improperly, or (3) that had not been tithed properly. In this case, what we find is a group of zealous Judaizers attempting not only to get full conversion to Judaism but also to their particular variety of Judaism (probably Pharisaism; cf. Matt. 23:15).
As already mentioned, Peter had grown accustomed to going against the rules and doing so with Gentiles. But when a party from Jerusalem arrived (“certain men from James”), he felt the pressure of their presence and their potential condemnation. Feeling their displeasure (and no doubt hearing about it from them), he “began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles.” The table that had functioned wonderfully as a symbol of unity had become a table of separation once again for Peter.
Who are these “men from James”? Are they identical to the “circumcision group”? While many readers of Galatians have simply assumed that the two are identical, a few modern scholars have suggested otherwise.14 It is true that this term, “those who circumcise,” could refer to Christian Judaizers (Acts 11:2), to Jewish Christians (10:45), and to non-Christian Jews (Rom. 4:12). The “circumcision group” is almost certainly not the same as the Jewish Christians at Antioch, since Peter had already enjoyed his “liberation” in their presence without criticism (Gal. 2:13). It is also questionable that Peter would be afraid of the “men from James” since he was previously on good terms with the Christians in Jerusalem where James was the leader (Acts 12). This makes it possible that the “circumcision group” is a party of non-Christian Jews who were physically persecuting those who were becoming associated with Christianity (which the circumcisers thought was an incomplete form of Judaism) and that their primary target in Antioch was Peter, a respected, and perhaps somewhat indecisive, leader. Such a reading of “circumcision group” makes Paul’s use of the term “circumcision” in Galatians 2 consistent (cf. 2:7, 8; see notes at 6:12). In other words, this party was a group of law-abiding Jewish zealots bent on “forcing” Gentile converts, to either Christianity or Judaism, to convert fully if such converts wanted to be under the umbrella of Judaism. The other group, then, the “men from James,” may have been either Jewish Christians from Jerusalem who were either honestly or falsely representing the position of James, or they may be identical to the circumcision party, in which case they were not Christians. I suspect they were truly from James, though they may not have been representing James with full integrity.
In order to understand the theological and social tensions working into this situation, it is best to chart out the “players involved” in our chapter. Because of its Western import, I have decided to display the “players” according to whether they were to the “left” (progressives) or to the “right” (conservatives). Without judging which is wrong or right, we see Paul as “leftist” because his efforts consistently stretched the outer boundaries of Judaism, and we see James as “rightist” because his form of Christianity was much more comfortable within the confines of Jerusalem. Peter, for convenience, is depicted here as a “moderate,” because he sought to live within the two spectrums. His “moderation” in this instance, however, was hypocritical and not a genuine instance of moderation. “Jewish Christians,” of course, could be either moderate or rightist, depending on the individual and the amount of liberation discovered in Christ and the Spirit.15
To continue our story line, Peter’s habits changed when the “men from James” arrived. Why? Paul says, “because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.” We have defined this latter group as a group of ardent Jewish nationalists, based in Jerusalem, who urged all groups in Jerusalem and Judaism to live faithfully according to the law. Peter, perhaps still smarting from his time in prison (Acts 12), thought one struggle with persecution was enough (cf. also 4:21; 5:40). Perhaps he even remembered the words of the “pillars” that he was called to the Jews and reasoned that he did not need to give up on his Jewish nationalism (Paul could do that). The presence of the “men from James” and their words that the nationalists were upset were enough for Peter to change directions and do an “about face” on eating with Gentiles.
Peter’s change was perhaps acceptable, especially for one who needed to protect his Jewish image for his primary calling to evangelize the Jews. But “the other Jews joined him, … even Barnabas.” When the others got involved, there developed a social rift in the churches in Galatia: a Gentile group and a Jewish group. This was intolerable for one who believed that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28). There was now, in effect, two churches: a kosher church and a Gentile church. The symbolic rupture of dissociating from fellowship with the Gentiles by not eating with them was severe, too severe for Paul, and he set out to correct those in the wrong.
Paul charged Peter with “hypocrisy” (explained in v. 14). What is “hypocrisy”? A standard definition of “hypocrisy” is “intentional (and even unintentional) contradiction of belief and practice.” Frequently, the term is used for those who “fake religious confessions” or who live in a manner in complete contrast to their religious persuasions. This is supposedly based on the historical origins of the word: hypocrite (Gk. hypocrites) was a theatrical term for the person who wore a mask on stage and who often interpreted the scene for the audience. In time, the term was used for the person who “play acted” a role, this usage naturally leading to a moral description of someone who was insincere or fake (our term “hypocrite”). However, as many have noted, hypocrites as used in the New Testament has Jewish (not simply Greek) roots and is in fact stronger than our term. It is fundamentally important to derive meanings from ancient texts, not from modern English dictionaries. The term carries with it the senses of wickedness, opposition to God and his truth, and even heresy.16 In other words, Peter was not simply “acting” here; he was not simply “deceiving through pretense.” Instead, he was morally wrong because he was theologically wrong (v. 11); not surprisingly, Paul would say next that Peter had jettisoned the “truth of the gospel” (v. 14). Peter had become heretical here. Why? The next verse answers this.
The charge (v. 14) Paul charges Peter indirectly and directly in this verse. Indirectly, Paul sums up Peter’s behavior as “not acting in line with the truth of the gospel.” As we mentioned in the previous paragraph, hypocrisy was a charge against one’s conformity to truth. So, Paul says, Peter’s behavior was essentially a failure to live in line with the truth of the gospel. The gospel Paul is talking about is clear: justification is for all who surrender in trust to Christ. Furthermore, justification implies a life of obedience to God’s will and a life of freedom in the Spirit. Peter claimed justification by faith and the Holy Spirit but lived in contradiction to this when he held “faith” in one hand and “joining Judaism” in the other as the two requirements for acceptance with God. By his behavior Peter’s gospel had shifted from “salvation for all without social restrictions” to “salvation for Jews alone” (and those who convert to Judaism). Peter had erected the old social barriers.
Directly, Paul accuses Peter in the following words: “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” Paul’s first sentence is not without its own problems. It was not wrong for Jewish missionaries to the Gentiles to be Jews who lived like Gentiles and not like Jews. I do not think we find Paul’s severest criticism in this first sentence. This behavior was tolerable for Paul. But it became problematical when those same missionaries (including Peter) then “force[d] Gentiles to follow Jewish customs.” This word force is the most important word in this verse, for it tips us off as to what Peter was doing.
For some reason, commentaries have been prone to overlook this word in their explanations. More often than not, many scholars see this term as moral force, in the sense that Peter, through the power of his example, was pressuring the Gentiles then to act like Jews.17 I find this explanation short of full persuasion. The term Paul uses is a strong one: “force” (Gk. anankazo) denotes “physical force” against one’s will. Two examples in Galatians are important. At Galatians 2:3 we read that not “even Titus … was compelled to be circumcised,” and at 6:12 that Paul’s opponents “are trying to compel you to be circumcised.” Paul’s earlier life of forceful actions against Christians is also telling in this regard. He demanded that these new Christians either be circumcised and adopt the whole law or face death (cf. Acts 9). We read at Acts 26:11 that “I [Paul] tried to force them to blaspheme” (emphasis added); here we can only think of the long line in history of those who have persecuted the Jews, torturing them until they either recanted or died. I am not, of course, eliminating the sense of moral persuasion in this term, but I am seeking to restore the physical dimension that was no doubt originally present.18
So what was Peter doing? He had previously enjoyed unrestricted social fellowship with the Gentiles, speaking their language, eating their food, drinking their wine, touching their children, and sitting in their homes. When the Jewish nationalists arrived, Peter, perhaps remembering his narrow escape in Jerusalem, reversed his behavior and withdrew from the Gentiles. His behavior and speech got others to go along with him. But, in addition, he then began to force Gentile Christians to be circumcised (and to follow Jewish social laws),19 to reduce the threat of persecution he was beginning to feel from these ardent Jewish nationalists. Peter, in effect, was destroying the gospel of Jesus Christ by demanding that the converts at Galatia become Jews. In such a situation, there was no gospel because the work of Christ had been eliminated (v. 21).
Bridging Contexts
APPLYING EXAMPLES, AS I have said before, is relatively easy. In our search for modern applications of Paul’s confrontation with Peter, we may want to find other instances of leaders leading others astray, either by way of example or outright physical force (which I suspect is quite rare). What comes immediately to mind is the responsibility of leaders. Their examples and teachings are followed by those whom they lead. We can think of the good example of Paul, who here fought valiantly for the freedoms found in the gospel; we can also think of the bad example of Peter, who here succumbed to the pressure and threat of persecution. Both characters can be catalysts for applications.
Furthermore, we can think of the other characters in our quests for applications. Who today can be (or has been) like the “men from James” (and we need not restrict the applications to males)? like Gentiles? Jewish Christians? Barnabas? In our search for analogies in our world, it is best for us to stick as tightly as possible to situations that are similar to Paul’s context. We are dealing here with a large church situation (not a work-place problem) that involves both several groups (not just a one-on-one disagreement) and the integrity of the gospel (not some squabble over how much bass should be in church music).
Each of these groups or individuals can be explored for applications, and I suggest we follow some of the ideas presented here. “Men from James” are conservative people who stand zealously for the faith but whose faith is erroneously restricted to one social group. Before one can find contemporary analogies to this group, one must also decide if they are identical to the circumcision party or not. Since I tend to think they are not identical, I would want to find analogies in people whose faith is sub-Christian (say, radical denominationalism) and who zealously present it as the final truth, as we find in such groups as the Mormons. If one contends that the “men from James” are in fact not Christians, then one would want to explore groups who seek to convert Christians to their religious persuasions.
The “Gentile Christian” versus “Jewish Christian” groups are not hard to explore either. What we need to find is some form of faction in our churches or in the church at large. This form, for purposes of application, need not be racial or social (though I would prefer to remain as directly in tune with the actual situation as possible); it need only be some form of a potential faction. Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians, we may be sure, sometimes got along and sometimes did not. Their differences were as much religious as social. The points of contention, we can imagine, were usually expressed in theological terms and were no doubt blown out of proportion by each side. Sound familiar? What we have, then, is a new group of Christians, united by a common faith in Christ and carrying a history of social conflicts. Their union will be hard to maintain and will take strenuous activity and difficult bending by both sides.
Barnabas is interesting. This man was a Jewish Christian with exemplary pastoral gifts in handling conflicts. But even great leaders fail; Barnabas is an example of a noble Christian collapsing under peer pressure and threats of persecution. The construction of Galatians 2:13 suggests that Barnabas was persuaded by the others and did not himself desire the separation.20 Nonetheless, he was also wrong.
Paul and Peter are the easiest to interpret and apply: Paul was in the right and Peter in the wrong. Now in the nature of human conflict, it is predictable that each side will think it has its Paul and will see Peter in the other side. For our purposes, only the grace of God and insight into his Word and our world can enable us to perceive who is Paul and who is Peter in our conflicts. We must be careful to discern our gospel: Is our message the true gospel of grace and freedom, the gospel that has come to us through Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit? Do we live in consistency with our profession?
It is fundamentally important for us not to focus exclusively on Peter’s being wrong and Paul’s being right. We need to understand why Paul was right and why Peter was wrong. Paul’s argument is not personal and vindictive, as if he were somehow jealous of Peter’s ministries. Nor is his argument simply intellectual. Rather, Peter was wrong because his theology was wrong. Peter’s practice flowed from his theology, and his theology, as a result of his reversal, was rotten. Consequently, his behavior was also wrong. Peter’s new theology was no different than Judaism: salvation is of the Jews, and Gentiles must convert to Christ and to both the law and the Jewish nation in order to be acceptable to God. Paul was right because he saw in Peter’s behavior the blossoming of a poisonous plant. Paul knew that justification was by faith, for both Jew and Gentile, through God’s grace, and in Christ, and it resulted in the gift of the Holy Spirit. Paul knew that Peter had failed to understand the first and second elements of the gospel and that this misunderstanding distorted the whole gospel.
But perhaps we are being too hard on Peter. It may be that he was simply failing in the implications he was drawing from his theology but that his theology itself was fine. Peter, perhaps, believed that Christ was sufficient and that the Holy Spirit was more than adequate to guide one’s life before God. But, it might be argued, he was acting in a way that denied his theology. Potential applications from this view could also be found, and this is a view, I think, that deserves some consideration.
Before we can apply Paul’s message in 2:11–14 we must understand what made Peter wrong. Peter was not wrong because he reversed his behavior nor even because he demanded circumcision; we could feasibly imagine situations in the world of Judaism when Christians might go along with the command of God to circumcise so as not to offend the Jews (cf. Acts 16:3). Peter was wrong because he failed to perceive the implication of the gospel when applied to Gentiles. What Paul was after were misperceptions of the gospel, not people who reversed their decisions and practices.
What does this text say about confrontation? Some biblical scholars have found this passage embarrassing and even sub-Christian, usually because they see in Paul’s behavior a combative triumphalism. Why, they ask, did Paul not seek out Peter in private? He had apparently gone private earlier (2:1–2), so why not here? Did Paul contradict himself with his desire to confront people in gentleness (6:1)? To be sure, it would be eminently helpful to have both Peter’s and Barnabas’s account of the incident to round off the rough edges of Paul’s account. And it is surely our responsibility not to be too hard on either Peter or Barnabas in light of our own known habits toward error. We must be careful not to think that everything about confrontation can be found here; after all, Paul is not talking about confrontation abstractly!
Nonetheless, what Peter did was wrong. He compromised the gospel in trying to rearrange its essentials. It is one thing to become a Jew to the Jews; it is quite another thing to make Gentiles become Jews. And this is where Paul’s point must be given full weight. We need to tolerate social differences and to be flexible with respect to minor details; but, we can never tolerate the demand of social conformity as one of the essentials of the gospel. Paul was right and Peter was wrong.
Put differently for us, we need not be overly concerned with when a person was baptized (at infancy or at a later profession of faith), which denomination one attends, which political party one prefers, what color someone may be, or which social status one has attained—these are trivial. But faith in Christ, obedience to him, and adherence to the essentials of the gospel are neither trivial nor to be taken lightly. We pronounce trivial differences tolerable; we pronounce gospel deviations wrong.
But did Paul need to rebuke Peter publicly? First, it is important for us to admit how little we actually know about this situation; second, it is just as important for us to sympathize with Paul in his portrait. Before we jump to the conclusion about Paul’s supposed harshness, it might be good for us to attempt to read this story more gently and compassionately. It is possible (in my view likely) that Paul did go to Peter privately first; I do not think this is asking too much or assuming too much. Good leaders (and Paul was surely one) do not immediately jump on people. If Paul did, then it is probable that he got nowhere, or at least not as far as he wanted. Thus he went public. Yet even this public rebuke and explanation may have not won the day. Paul’s relationship with Jerusalem seemed to have remained tense and strained throughout his life.
But perhaps I am wrong; perhaps Paul did get after Peter immediately in a public confrontation. Was he wrong in doing so? To begin with, we need to say that Paul’s example is not impeccable and that he just may be wrong here in his approach. I would want to maintain that, as a principle, what Paul taught was right; how he taught what he taught may have been less than desirable. Peter was wrong in compromising the gospel; Paul was accurate in what he saw and what he had to say about Peter. But, Paul could be wrong in going public about Peter.
However, I would also want to maintain that there is a certain wisdom in the principle of confronting private sins privately and public sins publicly.21 What Peter did was wrong and, left alone, would have had massive public consequences. In such situations it is probably wisest to go public—but to do so with a certain humility and gentleness (cf. Gal 6:1). I am convinced that we can hold together a direct (and uncomfortable for us) confrontation by Paul with a loving stance toward Peter, his followers, and the churches in Galatia. Try reading Galatians 2:11–14 in a gentler tone; it can be done. And when done, the entire emotion of the passage changes. I ask if it is not possible to read this with tears in Paul’s eyes and a thankful, but repentant, response on the part of Peter. We do know that Peter did not ultimately part company with Paul. This tense situation may have been an important growing experience for both apostles.
Contemporary Significance
PERHAPS I SHOULD say up front that this text is not about contemporary “food laws” in our society. We have all grown accustomed to the news media telling us that one more food we have been eating is not good for us and may clog our arteries (only to be countered five years later by another study that suggests the opposite), and we have also gotten used to checking the lists on boxes of food to find what percentage is fat and cholesterol (now broken into the good kind and the bad kind). But these scruples of ours were not Peter’s or the Jews’. What concerned them was biblical law, living before God in a “clean” state, and keeping their national status clear with respect to these laws. We misfire when we think these legal concerns of Peter’s were concerned with diet; they were about piety.
Furthermore, while Peter’s behavior (and misbehavior as corrected by Paul) might teach us what Mark taught us, that all food is clean (Mark 7:19), that is also not the point. I would want to maintain that this is a legitimate inference from the text but that such is not the concern of the text. The text is concerned about social and cultural imperialism, about Jewish designs to protect their privileged status before God. Accordingly, Paul’s criticisms of Peter were not concerned with getting Peter to eat shrimp and other “watery swarming things,” but with getting Peter to realize how grand God’s plan was: God’s design was for all people to come to him through Christ and in the Spirit. Paul’s concerns then were to destroy social and cultural imperialism. This he does by showing how all people may be found acceptable to God simply by surrendering in faith to Jesus Christ.
The freedom of consistency. Peter learned a lesson at Antioch; if he did not, he should have. That lesson was that the demand to live according to the gospel brought with it a remarkable freedom and adventure as it penetrated the Gentile world. The life that Peter had lived was a sheltered life, enclosed within the law of Moses and protected by myriads of self-respecting Jews who lived according to the law. But Peter was converted to Jesus Christ, and he now had to live a new life in the Spirit of God. The adaptations and changes that Peter’s new ministry involved were difficult for him. He needed to learn that there had to be considerable flex in this new life. What was hard to accept was that this new life was consistent: consistent with God’s Spirit (though perhaps not with the law). Consistency in Christian living is not conformity and uniformity. Consistency is measured by listening to God’s Word, to Christ, and to the Spirit of God.
There is a certain safety in being regulated by law and ordinances, along with a certain respectability and social blocking. When a questionable practice arises, there is security in consulting the rule book and looking up the answer, thus remaining within the group. But life in the Spirit is not so secure. Peter had trouble with this when he got to Antioch and did not have the courage to stick to his initial leadings. What was formerly regulated was now left to him to decide as God’s Spirit led him.
I have often thanked God for the Spirit of God, for apart from him we would be without guidance on so many issues that confront us in our world today. The New Testament is our foundation, but it is only a foundation; the superstructure has to be constructed over and over again as we confront our society. When we face crucial political or social decisions, we go to the Bible, but sometimes we are not given direct answers; after reading it and surrendering our spirit to God’s will, we need boldly to step forth as Christians and live the way we think God wants us to. When we arrive in our Antiochs, in our new situations, we need to learn to live consistently within the freedom that God’s Spirit provides. For some, this is scary; for all it ought to be the adventure of living in faith.
Peer pressure. We adults are in the habit today of speaking of “peer pressure” as something that the youth of our society faces. They face the pressure of friends and acquaintances who drink, use drugs, engage in immoral sexual practices, and live lives that are essentially unholy and displeasing to God. We constantly urge them to “Just Say No” to their friends and to sin. But we forget that peer pressure is as much a part of the adult life as it is of the teenage years.
Where is peer pressure felt (at the adult level) in your church and in your life? To be sure, some peer pressure is good. If we use another term we can see this. The term accountability has become fashionable in evangelical circles of late. Accountability is the positive side of “peer pressure.” The negative side is our focus. What we are concerned about here is that, as with Peter’s succumbing to the pressures of the Jewish leaders who misunderstood the gospel, there are instances when Christians today refuse to live according to the gospel because of the potential displeasure of others. As Hudson Taylor experienced criticism for adopting the Chinese way of life, so many Christians today experience criticism for their experiments in Christian freedom. The principle is simple, and potentially dangerous: as long as we are led by the Spirit, our behavior is God’s will. While it may be unspiritual (i.e., not being led by God’s Spirit) for most of us to skip a Sunday morning service to play golf, it may be the precise leading of God’s Spirit for a Christian professional golfer to do so as he or she serves the Lord with the gifts granted by the Lord. There are no rules and regulations here; there is only God’s Word, God’s Spirit, and God’s Church—each offering guidance.
It doesn’t seem to matter what decisions we make; someone will criticize our choices. If we are handcuffed by a fear of people’s criticisms, we will never accomplish anything. Such fear is nothing more than peer pressure. Peter made a bad decision when he felt that pressure; we will too. But God calls us to a fearless obedience of his will as we live in the Spirit. What we need is courage, courage to live according to our faith and its implications rather than according to our emotions, fleeting passions, and fear of others.
The hardest implication of grace to accept is perhaps that there are no other grounds of acceptance with God other than Christ in God’s Spirit. We are not accepted on the basis of our physical appearance, our financial status, our family history, our social standing, our athletic talents, our rhetorical skills, or our religious deeds and piety. We are accepted by God’s grace through Christ. And here is where it is hardest: we have a hard time treating others in a way that is consistent with the way God treats us. God deals with us in a way that is consistent with who we are in Christ; we, on the other hand, add rules and tests for accepting others. I maintain that life in God’s grace is hardest when it comes to living with and accepting others.22 And one facet of this difficulty is learning to live in God’s freedom in such a way that other’s approval or disapproval is not the motivating force in our decisions. May God, in his grace, grant us the freedom to live in the Spirit.