Acts 15; Galatians 2
The retirement into which Peter entered, to escape the vigilance of Herod, would appear to have been of some long continuance. Coincidently with his retiral for these reasons, Paul comes to the front, in the history of God’s work on earth, as narrated in the Acts of the Apostles. Chapters 13 and 14 give us a most interesting narrative of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Asia Minor, through the ministry of Paul and Barnabas. The link of association that we noted between these two men, in connection with Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion (Acts 9:2727But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. (Acts 9:27)), had been strengthened by the action of Barnabas shortly after.
Paul, as we remember, had gone to Tarsus, his native city (Acts 9:3030Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus. (Acts 9:30)). Shortly after this, news reached Jerusalem of the work begun at Antioch, in the province of Seleucia, through the preaching of those who “were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen” (Acts 11:1919Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. (Acts 11:19)). Two places called Antioch are named in the New Testament. The Antioch referred to here was more important in every way than the smaller city in Pisidia, visited by Paul (see Acts 13:1414But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. (Acts 13:14)). This Antioch, which Seleucus Nicator built, 300 B.C., and named after his father Antiochus, was a city on the banks of the Orontes, three hundred miles north of Jerusalem, and about thirty from the Mediterranean. It consisted of four townships or quarters, each surrounded by a separate wall, and all four by a common wall. It was the metropolis of Syria, the residence of the Syrian kings — the Seleucidae — and afterward became the capital of the Roman provinces in Asia, ranking third, after Rome and Alexandria, among the cities of the empire. It had a population of about 200,000, and will always have an interest to all lovers of Christ, because “the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch” (Acts 11:2626And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (Acts 11:26)).
When tidings arrived that in this important city “a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord,” the assembly in Jerusalem dispatched Barnabas to help in the work, “who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.... And much people was added to the Lord” Acts (11:23-24).
Doubtless feeling the importance of the work going on at Antioch, Barnabas departed to Tarsus “to seek Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people” (vs. 26). From this time Barnabas and Saul were fellow-workers and close companions in the work of the Lord, till the events recorded in Acts 15. Antioch would appear to have been their headquarters for a considerable time. From it they went out, prayerfully commended by the assembly there, on the special missionary tour recorded in Acts 13, and to it they return. “And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how He had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. And there they abode long time with the disciples” (Acts 14:27-2827And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. 28And there they abode long time with the disciples. (Acts 14:27‑28)).
This tour is the first formal mission to the Gentiles; among whom assemblies are formed, and local officers — elders — appointed by the apostles. The Word of God, with marked and distinct energy of the Holy Spirit, thus goes out to the Gentiles, converting them, gathering them together in the Name of the Lord Jesus, forming assemblies, and establishing local officers (not ministers so-called but elders, certainly, and possibly deacons too), and all this apart from, and independently of, the action of the twelve apostles, and the assembly at Jerusalem, and without the obligation to comply with the Mosaic law, which still had rule there.
At Antioch the question is now raised whether this last could be allowed. This question is not raised by the Jews who opposed the gospel, but by those who had embraced it, yet were still going on with the law, and now desired to impose the same yoke on the Gentiles. In Acts 15 we get a full account of this deeply important matter, affecting as it does the very foundations of Christianity.
“And certain men, which came down from Judea, taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (vs. 1). Coming as these men did from Jerusalem, they appeared to have the sanction of the assembly, and of the twelve apostles there, and this gave their statements the greater weight. Paul and Barnabas, fully alive to the gravity of their error, “had no small dissension, and disputation with them” (vs. 2); and well they might, for to insist that conformity to the law of Moses was essential to salvation, was to absolutely nullify Paul’s gospel, to destroy the doctrine of grace, and to elevate the deeds of the law into being at least a partially saving grace. Justification by faith, if this doctrine were true, was a delusion, so we can well understand the uncompromising hostility with which Paul met these seducers, or “false brethren,” as he calls them in Galatians 2.
But it was the will, as well as the wisdom of God, that this grave matter should be settled at Jerusalem and not at Antioch, either by Paul’s apostolic authority, or even by the Holy Spirit’s verdict, first delivered there. Had such taken place, the unity of the Church might, and most certainly would, have been endangered. A resolution made at Antioch, affecting the whole church, would have been a different thing from the same resolution made at Jerusalem, as things then were. The care of God over His Church in this matter is most blessed. A conference at Jerusalem He knew would settle the matter absolutely, no matter what prejudices the Jews might have, and would maintain union instead of periling it. That there was bigotry at Jerusalem was true, but if there, of all places, the truth was maintained, it would carry weight universally. On the other hand, had the assembly at Antioch decided the point, the Jewish assembly at Jerusalem would not have acknowledged the truth, and the apostolic authority of the twelve would have been lacking in the promulgation of the truth. All this God obviates.
Paul’s reference to this matter in the Epistle to the Galatians shows the gravity of the crisis. In reality things were in question that touched the very foundations of Christianity. If any were circumcised, he was under law, had given up grace, and had fallen away from Christ (Gal. 5:2-42Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:2‑4)). All this was plain to Paul, but not to those he opposed; so eventually it was arranged that he and Barnabas, “and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question” (Acts 15:22When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. (Acts 15:2)). This statement gives us the outward history of Paul’s action, as he yielded to the motives others presented to him. In Galatians 2, speaking of the same occasion, he states, “I went up by revelation” (vs. 2). The communication of God is his inward guide. God did not allow him to have his own way. It is good sometimes to have to submit, though ever so right. Full of faith, and energy and zeal, as Paul was, he was obliged to go up, in order to have every mouth shut, and unity maintained. When he does go up he takes Titus with him, uncircumcised. Truth was at stake, and principle involved, so he will not yield on this point in Titus’s case. This was a hold step, the taking of Titus. It compelled the decision of the question between himself and Judaizing Christians. Paul was walking in the liberty of the Spirit in this matter, and seeking to introduce other believers into it, and he won the day, as we shall see.
When the Antiochan deputation arrived in Jerusalem, “they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses” (vss. 4-5). The issue is thus plainly stated, and thereafter “the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” Much discussion followed, for which there was the fullest liberty, and then Peter comes on the scene again. He reminds them of what God had done through him among the Gentiles, saying, “Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us: and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we wore able to bear? But we believe that, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved, even as they” (vss. 7-11). Manifestly Peter at this juncture flings the full weight of his influence in favor of the utmost freedom being accorded to the Gentiles in respect of the question raised. His speech, though short, is very pithy and pointed, and the closing sentence fine to the last degree, “We shall be saved, even as they. It was not, even “They shall be saved, even as we.” No, it is thus: “We Jews will have to be saved on the same lines as they — and they most assuredly were never under law.” This was a crushing blow to the Judaisers. The convincing effect of Peter’s sweeping, and truly characteristic assertions was doubtless great.
He is followed by the Gentile ambassadors. “Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them” (vs. 12). Thereafter James speaks, and quotes from the prophet Amos to show that God meant to have a people from among the Gentiles. He fully agrees with Peter, saying, “My sentence is, that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned to God” (vs. 19).
The effect of James thus summing up is that the judgment of the assembly becomes clear. “Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren” (vs. 22). They carry with them a letter to the brethren of the Gentiles which closed the vexed matter authoritatively. The terms of the decree were these. “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us; to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well” (vss. 28-29).
The Gentiles were in the habit of doing all these forbidden things, but it is important to note that they were not things forbidden by the law only, so that to regard this injunction as a compromise between the legalists and Paul — as some have done — is a mistake. All these things were contrary to God’s order as Creator. Marriage — that is, purity, not license — was the original institution of God in Eden, and thus only were man and woman to be connected (Gen. 2:21-2521And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:21‑25)). After the deluge, when God gave Noah leave to eat flesh, He then prohibited the blood, for life belongs to God (Gen. 9:3-53Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 4But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 5And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. (Genesis 9:3‑5)).
Again, all fellowship with idols was an outrage against the authority of the only living and true God. To do any of these forbidden things, therefore, was contrary to the intelligent knowledge of God, and had nothing to say to Moses and the law. The Gentiles had walked in ignorance. They needed to be instructed on these points, and the instruction is addressed to their Christian intelligence, with the object of pointing out to them the character of man’s true relation to God in the things of nature.
In no sense is the decree either a compromise with Jewish prejudice, or a new law imposed by Christianity. It is the concise statement of principles important for every Christian man to know, namely, 1. The unity of God, as one only and true God — hence to in any way acknowledge idols was to provoke Him to jealousy. 2. Life belongs to God. 3. God’s original ordinance for man was purity in marriage.
In this matter it is apparent that Peter and Paul are quite of one mind. Paul must have been cheered as well as charmed, by Peter’s bold way of putting the truth, that he himself so loved, and lived to enunciate, namely, that the believer is in no sense whatever under law. It must have been an immense comfort to Paul too, that the apostles, and the assembly in Jerusalem, not only wrote as they did, thus fully sanctioning Paul and Barnabas in their ministry, but likewise sent with them persons of note, “chief men among the brethren,” who could not be suspected of conveying a letter which supported their own views, a thing that might have been alleged had Paul and Barnabas returned alone, merely bearing the edict. It was Jerusalem that had decided that the law was not binding on the Gentiles, and they, when they hear this, rejoice greatly at their freedom from the yoke of bondage, which others would have thrust upon their necks.
Judas and Silas remained some time at Antioch together; then Judas departed, leaving Silas in this fresh and interesting scene of the Lord’s happy work. He preferred rather to work among the Gentiles than to return to Jerusalem, and the lines fell to him in pleasant places afterward. “Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also” (vs. 35). This last clause would indicate that the assembly there had now become large and important, inviting the care and attention of many servants of God, and easily accounts for Peter’s presence in the city, at no great distance of time after the conference at Jerusalem. From that time no further mention of Peter is made in the Acts.
The exact date of his visit is uncertain, as no record of it is given in the Acts. Certain, however, it is that he did visit Antioch, and then acted in a way that compelled the apostle Paul to withstand him to the face, before all.
The account of what transpired is given by Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians. There (ch. 2), after narrating what led him to Jerusalem, he recounts what the Acts does not record the way the twelve Apostles received him, and the effect on them of his visit. Briefly it was this, that they saw and acknowledged that Paul was taught of God independently of them; they also recognized his ministry and apostleship, as one called, and sent of God; and that he was acting on the part of God as much as themselves. Further, he communicated truth to them, which he had been already teaching the Gentiles, while they added nothing to him. He delightedly owned God’s grace to Peter, saying, “For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles: And when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision” (vss. 8-9).
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 unto 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. 2:11-1811But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12For 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. 13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto 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? 15We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16Knowing 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. 17But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. (Galatians 2:11‑18)). 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 center 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 bringeth a snare.”
Fervent, energetic, and ardent as we have found Peter to be, he appears always to have cared too much about the opinion of others regarding himself. If not delivered from this, by the realized presence of God, the opinion others have of us is always apt to influence our hearts, the more so if that opinion makes anything of us after the flesh. Hence we are weak just in proportion as we esteem any position of importance which we have before men. If we are as nothing in their eyes, and in our own eyes too, we act independently of them. This did not Peter here. As a result, his action influences “the other Jews and Barnabas” — the last of all men to be so influenced we should have thought — is “carried away by their dissimulation.” But this is the legitimate fruit of what we have been considering. In the measure in which others influence us, we exercise an evil influence over them, if the desire to maintain our reputation with them be carried into action in the form of meeting their wishes, contrary to that which we well know to be the truth. The more godly a man is, the greater is the evil effect of his course on others if it consist in the allowance of what is not of God, as he gives the weight of his godliness to the evil he consents to or goes on in.
But why is Peter’s course, and that of the others here, called dissimulation? Because Peter had not one whit changed his convictions. He had recorded them boldly in Acts 15; now, to please others, he merely altered his practice. Had any one gone and said, “Peter, do you believe that circumcision, and keeping of the law of Moses, are necessary to salvation?” he would have instantly replied, “Certainly not.” Why, then, this change of front? Human influence, religious influence, and desire to stand well with old friends. Poor Peter! He saw not that this action of his, in refusing to eat with the Gentiles, was a virtual denial of them as his brethren in Christ; a returning to his old views that they were common and unclean, which we thought the vision of Acts 10 had forever swept away; a contradiction of his own words in the congress of Jerusalem; and a violation of the spirit of the letter he helped so largely to indite on that occasion.
His conduct here is, in a measure, in keeping with his sayings at the supper-table, and with his actings in the high priest’s hall. There is the same professed valor, and impulsive boldness; to be, alas! followed by the same shrinking timidity, in the hour of trial. Whether this too was followed by the same revulsion of feeling, as he saw that he had really denied his Lord once more, in the person of these Gentile converts, and that thereupon he went out, and once more “wept bitterly,” we are not told; but our knowledge of Peter would lead to this conclusion, as the most likely thing to happen.
The way in which he got his eyes opened to the effect of his course, we will now just glance at, ere we close our meditations on Simon’s interesting life, with its fruitful lessons for our hearts.
Paul alone seems to have stood firm at this crisis at Antioch. To him Peter, notwithstanding his peculiar eminence, was not as a superior before whom he must be silent, when the truth of God was at stake. He “withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” Paul, who had been converted by the revelation of heavenly glory, and was full of the Holy Spirit, felt that all that exalted the flesh only obscured that glory, and falsified the gospel that proclaimed it. He lived morally in heaven, and in the company of a glorified Christ, whom he had seen there, and whom he knew to be the center of all God’s thoughts. Thus living, he became eagle-eyed to anything that detracted from Christ’s glory, or exalted man, as the claims of the Judaisers for the law, and its deeds, most certainly did. He thus saw that Peter’s walk was carnal, and not spiritual; and himself occupied with Christ, and set for the defense of the truth, he is bold as a lion for the truth, and will not spare any who overturns it, no matter how high their position in the assembly be.
Paul is not deterred by man; and in this his conduct here shines by contrast with Peter’s. But the way Paul acts is charming. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Prov. 27:66Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. (Proverbs 27:6)). Judas has illustrated the last clause of this verse, in his betrayal of Jesus; Paul illustrates the former, in his treatment of Peter. He goes frankly to him, while he publicly exposes the glaring inconsistency of which, equally publicly, he had been guilty. He knew that Peter really believed in his heart that which he himself did. He was certain that Peter’s convictions were the same as his own. He was equally certain that Peter had been betrayed into his inconsistent course — which in faithfulness he cannot describe as anything less than dissimulation — by the pressure brought to bear on him from without. He was equally convinced that Peter, at bottom, loved the Lord, the Gentiles, and himself; and this explains the faithfulness of his public address, which is a model of frankness coupled with delicacy, and of logical argument combined with persuasiveness. Let us give earnest heed to it.
“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? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 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. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor: for I through the law am dead to the law that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Gal. 2:14-2114But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto 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? 15We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16Knowing 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. 17But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Galatians 2:14‑21)).
He, a Jew, had felt free to live as the Gentiles. Why now compel the Gentiles to live as Jews, in order to enjoy full Christian communion? If he was at liberty to disregard the law of Moses a little while ago, how absurd to oblige Gentiles now to conform to its requirements. That was not insisted on in words, but is the natural inference, his withdrawal from them implying that circumcision was essential to salvation. But this affected the very foundation of the gospel, for themselves Jews by nature, and not poor sinners of the Gentiles, they bad quite given up the works of law, as a means of righteousness and of securing God’s favor, and had fled to Christ for justification and salvation. But if in doing this they are found sinners, as having willfully neglected the law as an appointed means of salvation, it follows necessarily that as they had neglected it in order to come to Christ, and really at His bidding, therefore Christ had been to them the minister of, and the inciter to sin. Since it was in order to come to Christ that they had ceased to seek righteousness by the law, and had exchanged the supposed efficacy of the law as a means of righteousness, for the work of, and faith in Christ, then Christ was the minister of sin, if they had made a mistake in this step, for He had prompted to it. Again, if they were now to rebuild the edifice of legal obligations in order to obtain righteousness, why had they overturned it? They were then transgressors in overturning it; for if it was to be rebuilt, it ought not to have been overturned, and, as it was Christ who led them to do this, He was become the minister of sin.
That was a conclusion that I am sure Peter shrank from with horror, but he had to face it If he was wrong in eating with the Gentiles, he certainly did it by the Lord’s direct command, given to him in the vision he got in Acts 10. If he was wrong therein, Christ it was who had instructed him to do wrong. If, on the other hand, he was right then, he was wrong now, and had become a transgressor.
What an awful result from the effort and the weakness of attempting to please men by returning to the things that give the flesh a place, and gratify it. Such is the result that ordinances, touched as a matter of legal obligation, ever have. How little do many professing Christians see the truth in this striking scene between the two apostles. Numbers today are resting on ordinances. To rest on them is really to rest on the flesh. Christ is everything to the believing soul, and these ordinances — baptism and the Lord’s Supper — drop into their right place. He has ordained them, not as means of grace to be rested on, but as distinguishing His people from the world, on the one hand, as dead with Him to it in baptism; and on the other — the Lord’s Supper — as gathered to Him, in the unity of His body, on the ground of the redemption which He has already, and perfectly accomplished.
Christ dead and risen is now our righteousness, hence to rest for this in ordinances, is exactly to deny the special truths they present. The flesh can occupy itself with ordinances, alas! all Christendom is busy therewith today, so let all who are resting on them learn this, that what they are really resting on is not Christ, but the flesh, which will find in them just enough to hide the Saviour from the soul, in its deep need, and spiritual hunger.
Paul felt all this acutely, hence his closing words, “I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.” He had learned the utter good-for-nothing-ness of the flesh, and that the law could not help it. It is incorrigible, and incurable in its evil. God has, therefore, condemned sin in the flesh. Its place is that of death, and not being better, as many a soul is today trying to effect,
Further, Paul had learned that to be under law was to find himself condemned to death, and his soul had realized death in all its power. If dead, — and he learned how that was, namely, by the cross of Christ — he was dead to law. It ruled over a living man — not a dead one. Its power does not go beyond life, and if its victim be once dead it has no more power over him.
But if the law only slew him, where could he find life? Only in Christ risen. He was crucified with Christ, so that the condemnation of the law was, for him, gone in the cross. The law had reached him — Saul the wayward sinner, the chief of sinners — in the person of the Son of God, who loved him, and gave Himself for him; and the life to which sins attached, and to which the dominion and penalty of the law also attached, had come to its end in the cross. Nevertheless he lived, yet not he, but Christ lived in him — that life in which Christ rose from the dead. But what sort of a life had Paul now? The old Adam life was gone in the death of the cross. The new life was Christ’s life. He was a new creature, and Christ was his object. “The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me,” are his words. This is personal life, the individual faith that attaches the soul to Christ, and makes Him the precious object of both faith and affection. Thus God’s grace is not frustrated. If, indeed, according to the Judaisers’ view, righteousness came in connection with law, in any shape or form, Christ had died in vain, since our righteousness would consist in our keeping the law. And what would be the effect? Loss, immense, unspeakable! We should really lose Christ, lose His love, His grace, and the righteousness of God which is by faith of Him, we should lose Him who is our life, our portion, our all.
How Peter received Paul’s rebuke we are not told, but we may be well assured, from our knowledge of his warm, honest temperament, that he received it in the spirit in which it was administered, and was convinced by it of his own wrong course. If he did not at once acknowledge this, and seek to repair the mischief he had done, and remove a stumblingblock out of the way of the gospel going out to the Gentiles, he was not the Peter we have been following with so much interest all this time. That any grudge or ill feeling towards Paul remained is scarcely consistent with our knowledge of the man, and is negated by the way he wrote of Paul afterward, as “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Peter 3:1515And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (2 Peter 3:15)).
We may be sure that the Lord would have us learn much from this scene. In Paul’s behavior we learn how we should stand for the truth at all costs; but if we have to withstand a brother, then it should be to his face, and not behind his back. Too often the reverse obtains, and the man who is judged guilty of fault is the last to hear of it, and that perhaps only by a side wind, while amongst others his supposed errors are freely discussed and canvassed. All this is wrong. If we have anything to say to a brother, let us go to him and say it to his own face first of all, and let us say nothing behind his back that we would not say to his face. If this rule was observed what sorrows would be saved in the Church of God, where, alas! frequently, whisperers have had encouragement rather than rebuke. God says, “A whisperer separateth chief friends” (Prov. 16:2323The heart of the wise teacheth his mouth, and addeth learning to his lips. (Proverbs 16:23)). I believe “chief friends” were more than ever cemented in holy friendship by the godly course Paul took here, and which we should all imitate.
From Peter’s vacillating course we may well learn the lesson, that one fall, even though it be met by perfect grace, and full restoration, does not cure a natural disposition, though it may go far to correct it. That the weak link in Peter’s chain still existed is manifest, and to this-blessed man of God though he was — can be traced the breakdown here recorded.
If he, an apostle, could so act, after all he had passed through, what need have we each to cry to the Lord, “Hold thou me up; and I shall be safe” (Psa. 119:117117Hold thou me up, and I shall be safe: and I will have respect unto thy statutes continually. (Psalm 119:117)).