Commentary on Galatians (26)
Nevertheless, religious politics often affect even churches that profess the true gospel, and believers are naïve who ignore the political ramifications of their doctrine and behavior. Pressure resulting from ecclesiastical politics is intense even in those institutions that appear to be more pure than the rest. It is not unheard of for some, when they cannot maintain their own views on the basis of Scripture, to use their influence and positions in churches, seminaries, denominations, and ecclesiastical courts to settle theological controversies. Thus Scripture is silenced, and tradition is maintained, along with these individuals as its established defenders.
Christians do not become immune to this pressure by pretending that it is not there; rather, they ought to recognize and understand it, and then in the face of it, persist in faithfulness to biblical doctrine and practice by the wisdom and power that come from the Spirit. And this is what Paul did in this instance. He was not naïve concerning the prominence of Peter, the significance of the men from James, or the political factors associated with the doctrinal controversy, along with its implications in practice and in the fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. But the spiritual ramifications of the situation had to override any political risks.
Under pressure, Peter separated himself from the Gentile Christians. Reversing his prior practice, he withdrew table fellowship from them. His original behavior acknowledged God's full acceptance of Gentiles through their faith in Christ apart from observing Jewish laws and customs. But now his action signaled the opposite, as if the Gentiles remained unclean without observing the Jewish laws and customs, even though they were believers in Christ. And to state the obvious, the reversal was also an insult against the Gentile Christians.
Peter's compromise implied an outright renunciation of the gospel, although this was not his intention, nor was it consistent with his own conviction on the matter, and thus the charge of hypocrisy from Paul (v. 13). Because Peter's offense was public, leading other Jews astray and slighting the entire Gentile population in the church, it was appropriate and necessary for Paul to confront Peter "in front of them all." To publicly humiliate Peter in such a manner also served to restore honor to the Gentile Christians in the church. Paul's drastic reaction reflected the fact that these were not second-class Christians to be insulted and abused by the Jews.
So Paul said to Peter, "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?" Again, the charge was hypocrisy (v. 13). Peter was not acting according to his own convictions; rather, he himself had ceased to observe Jewish laws and customs, and did not depend on them to find salvation or acceptance with God. He even preached the same gospel that Paul preached. However, when he separated himself from the Gentile Christians, his action implied that they were unclean and unaccepted even though they were already believers in Jesus Christ, but that they had to observe Jewish laws and customs to gain full fellowship.
There are three applications from this passage that we will mention, although we will not take time to develop them.
First, despite Peter's grievous failure, the authenticity of his apostleship and the inspiration of Scripture are unaffected. It is a fallacy to assume that errors inherently and necessarily pervade every human action so that it is impossible for a perfect sacred text to come about if men have anything to do with it. Divine inspiration ensures the perfection of Scripture. Peter's behavior in this instance was obviously not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, Peter was charged with hypocrisy and not consistency. This means that he never wavered in his profession of the true gospel, and when he was rebuked, he was in fact confronted with what he himself believed and preached. Thus even in this incident, there is maintained a consistent testimony for the gospel message as presented by Paul and the rest of Scripture. In other words, Peter's hypocrisy – that it could be called hypocrisy – reinforces the unity of the apostolic testimony regarding the nature and content of the true gospel.
The second point concerns the effect of hypocrisy. Preachers often incite their people toward holy living by stating that if their practice contradicts their profession, then no one would believe the gospel. This is not only untrue and unbiblical, but it is a blasphemous assault against the work of the Holy Spirit. Do we think that our holy actions directly influence men's minds and remove their resistance? No, in every case, the Holy Spirit is the one who acts on the hearts of men. Our holy actions at best provide him with the occasion by which to work. But he can certainly, and in fact does constantly, convert the elect despite the hypocritical behavior of those who profess the faith.
This is not to condone hypocrisy, for God will hold every person accountable, but it is to properly honor the power of the Word and the Spirit, and to remove any excuse from the unregenerate, some of which claim to reject the gospel because of the deplorable examples of believers. Whether someone else is a hypocrite is irrelevant to the nature of the truth or whether one should believe it. Spiritual weaklings will use some else's hypocrisy as an excuse to sin and rebel, but one who is spiritually zealous and mature is instead provoked to defend the truth against apostasy and compromise.
Third, this passage reminds us to maintain and protect full fellowship with every race and class of Christians, even when there is much less at stake than the situation described here. There are those who claim to be victims of racism, but then they segregate themselves in their churches, gatherings, and circles of friendship. They do not take seriously their Christian identity, and the common Christian identity shared by believers of all other races and groups, so that they stand condemned by their prejudice and hypocrisy. Their complaint of racism has become an excuse to extort uncritical sympathy, undeserved respect, and unfair advantages.
July 06 2007 | Expositions