The Truth of the Gospel

 Hello everyone. 

As we move deeper into Galatians 2, we come to a story of Peter's visit to Antioch, and how the issue of fellowship between Jews and Gentiles came to head.  Here is my translation of Galatians 2:11-14:

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood convicted of grave error. 12 Before the arrival of certain men sent by James, Peter had eaten with the Gentiles, but afterwards, he separated himself because he feared the circumcision group. 

13 The rest of the Jews joined with him in his hypocrisy, to the point that even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that their behavior was not compatible with the truth of the Gospel, I called out Cephas in front of everyone, saying, “If you are Jew who lives like a Gentile, then why are you trying to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Peter visits Antioch.  Apparently, he had been enjoying the fellowship of the Gentiles in Antioch, but, then some men showed up, sent from James, and Peter then separated himself from the Gentiles. As this circumcision crowd had come in, Peter withdrawal is noticable, and other Jews joined Peter in this, apparently, even Barnabus.  So, Paul calls Peter out on it.  

We have a very different scene here than the one Paul had just discussed.  In Jerusalem, Peter gave Paul the right hand of fellowship, but in Antioch, Paul opposes Peter to his face.  

In verse 14, Paul says that he calls Peter out on it becasue such behavior is not compatible with “τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου” (tēn alētheian tou euangeliou) or “The truth of the Gospel.”  

A good question to ask here would be, "What is the truth of the Gospel?" The truth of the Gospel is that it is a gospel of grace, not law-keeping.  Peter’s behavior was not compatible with grace.  Peter’s action of withdrawing his fellowship from the Gentile beleivers, by itself, is bad, but the fact that it was Peter, one of the most influential guys in the church, led others into this bad behavior, makes it even worse. Paul doesn't correct him quietly, in a corner somewhere. He calls him out in front of everyone. 

Why does Paul make such a big deal here?  Becasue, Peter’s actions are not in step with the truth of the gospel.  John Stott points out that Peter’s teaching was in step with it, but when he withdrew from the Gentile converts, his behavior was no longer in line with his teaching or with the truth of the gospel. (Stott, 50.)  Having been the guy who baptized Cornbelius and his family, Peter should have recognized that this not in step with the Holy Spirit, either. 

There is some discussion about when this incident actually took place.  Was it before or after the conference in Jerusalem?  Peter’s action makes a lot more sense if it happened before Jerusalem, since the issue of obedience to the Law had been settled there. It makes very little sense for Peter to act that way in Antioch after the Jerusalem meeting.  It also makes very little sense for James to send men of the circumcision group, since James was one of the people who spoke up on behalf of the Gentiles at the Jerusalem meeting.  

Of course, we have to realize that the issue here is not actually about circumcision, instead the issue is about the eating of meals with Gentiles. Perhaps the question still remained about how much contact there was to be between a faithful Jewish Christian and a Gentile Christian.  

Apparently Peter had overcome the typical Jewish hesitance to eat and associate with Gentiles, until these men showed up. It looks like Peter was a little afraid of them, because when they showed up, he stopped eating with the Gentiles.  

Peter is very influential, and his behavior, as previously stated, influenced others to do the same, most notably, Barnabus, who had helped to build the church in Antioch. Douglas Moo says that Antioch had become something of a laboratory for Jew-Gentile relations, (Moo, 142) as we are seeing the removal of some racial barriers.  Jews had always feared contamination from Gentiles, and the Jewish Christians seemed to have a hard time letting go of it. Whatever the motivation, Paul was clearly very upset by Peter’s actions. 

Peter should have known better than to act this way, but it still took courage and deep conviction for Paul to directly challenge him this way that he did. ( For the record, Barnabus is let off pretty easy here, but he should have known better too.) 

Paul says that Peter was condemned where “he stood convicted of grave error.” (My translation.)  The Greek word κατεγνωσμένος  (kategnōsmenos) is often translated as condemned.  So what does this mean? Does Peter stand condemned before God because of this mistake?  I don’t think so.  I think that God is far more gracious than that.  My opinion is that Paul's meaning here is that Peter is making a huge mistake, one that has really big implications for the conduct of the church.  

Moo says, “The disagreement in this text between the two in the matter of association between Jewish and Gentile believers should not be minimized: Paul does think that the truth of the Gospel is at stake.  Yet the difference is not fundamentally over theology but over the implications for a specific form of conduct that arises from theology.”  (Moo, 146.) Paul addresses this point later in Galatians 3:26-29. In God’s kingdom, Jews are no longer to hold themselves separate from Gentiles.  

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.  (NIV)

That's the truth of the gospel.  The gospel is God's grace and his grace makes us equals, in spite of ethnicity, gender and life circumstances.  The truth is that we are fortunate to be a part of such a great fellowship, anyway.