As for the significance of eating together, joining someone at the meal table is a sign of fellowship. To refuse meal fellowship then, of course, would signal some sort of distinction or even rejection. For example, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 5:11, "But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."

Elsewhere Peter was criticized by "the circumcised believers," who said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them" (Acts 11:3). On that occasion, Peter did not compromise the gospel but gave them an explanation on how it was revealed to him that God would save the Gentiles by the same gospel (v. 4-18). It is significant that Christ himself was attacked by the Pharisees for eating with tax collectors and other "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-11).

At Antioch, Peter ate with the Gentiles in the beginning. This was consistent with his profession of the gospel, that both Jews and Gentiles were accepted by God through Christ without the observance of Jewish laws and customs, including circumcision. But then "certain men from James" came, and Peter separated himself from the Gentiles "because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group."

We do not know the precise relation that these men had with James, or what they were there to accomplish, only that they disapproved of Peter's practice due to their rejection of the gospel. However, since James affirmed the true gospel (otherwise he would have been a reprobate and false apostle; Galatians 1:6-9), it is certain that whatever relation these men had with him, they did not represent his doctrinal views on the gospel, or how Jews and Gentiles are saved, and how they should conduct themselves as believers (Acts 15:24).

Moreover, we do not know why Peter was afraid of "the circumcision group." If what he felt was more than mere social pressure, then there could have been elements of religious politics behind the situation that we cannot discern from the text. There are theories suggesting that Peter's action resulted from his fear of becoming a stumbling-block to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, or that he even feared for their safety, as his behavior in Antioch (eating with the Gentiles) could have aggravated persecution against the Christians there.

However, even if there is any truth in them, all such speculations are irrelevant to an accurate understanding of Peter's motive. This is because, under divine inspiration, Paul declares that "he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group." There was no recognition of any noble reason or selfless concern. There was no excuse for Peter's hypocrisy – "he was clearly in the wrong." And to the extent that they attempt to beautify something that Scripture condemns, all these theories run counter to the truth and spirit of Paul's inspired letter.

Likewise, it is outright sinful for Cole to write, "To Barnabas, no doubt, this was simply a matter of love." "No doubt"? But there is nothing in the text to support this idea. Fear and hypocrisy are the only stated reasons. "A matter of love"? But this suggests a definition of love that is foreign to and subversive of Scripture. Does the Bible define love in a way that calls for disobedience against itself? Any idea of "love" that leads one to become an enemy of the gospel cannot be the kind of love that Scripture teaches. Cole's idea of love here is social and humanistic, and not derived from biblical precept. Besides, where is the love for the Gentile Christians? It seems that Barnabas and Cole have forgotten about them. Thus this is just another attempt to beautify what Scripture condemns as sin and hypocrisy.

Posted in Expositions | Permanent Link